User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/10/2014 7:10:12 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Might want to take the forward grip off. Just sayin. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Lots of Sig love here http://i1217.photobucket.com/albums/dd386/plikatok/Sig%20516%20CQB/null_zps536deec8.jpg Might want to take the forward grip off. Just sayin. Completely fine as the OAL is greater than 26". |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2014 7:17:32 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So are you going to read the complaint now or just continue to make up goofy scenarios? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So I could manufacture a baffle stack and market it as a cheese grater, and make a suppressor tube for that baffle stack and market it as a cookie cutter, and it would be legal to sell without restrictions? According to your logic I could do that because those parts were designed and marketed as kitchen utensils, which means they aren't legally suppressor parts because of your interpretation of what "any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication" means. So are you going to read the complaint now or just continue to make up goofy scenarios? I'ma gonna guess option number 2 |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2014 8:33:33 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So are you going to read the complaint now or just continue to make up goofy scenarios? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So I could manufacture a baffle stack and market it as a cheese grater, and make a suppressor tube for that baffle stack and market it as a cookie cutter, and it would be legal to sell without restrictions? According to your logic I could do that because those parts were designed and marketed as kitchen utensils, which means they aren't legally suppressor parts because of your interpretation of what "any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication" means. So are you going to read the complaint now or just continue to make up goofy scenarios? What specifically in the complaint do you think I need to focus on? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2014 8:36:02 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
 I'd like to see a functional suppressor baffle that can also grate cheese. A cheese grater also has a specific definition on how it functions, so you can't just say "well if you moosh the cheese against it, the cheese falls apart".
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So I could manufacture a baffle stack and market it as a cheese grater, and make a suppressor tube for that baffle stack and market it as a cookie cutter, and it would be legal to sell without restrictions? According to your logic I could do that because those parts were designed and marketed as kitchen utensils, which means they aren't legally suppressor parts because of your interpretation of what "any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication" means. I'd like to see a functional suppressor baffle that can also grate cheese. A cheese grater also has a specific definition on how it functions, so you can't just say "well if you moosh the cheese against it, the cheese falls apart".
A monolithic baffle stack will work as good for a cheese grater as that 9" baffle stack will work as a muzzle brake on a 9mm. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2014 8:59:20 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I do not own any Sig products but now that will change.Because I am an American citizen I now "MUST BUY" a SIG MPZ"! This |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2014 9:03:40 PM EDT
[#6]
i just desk popped my mosquito in celebration...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2014 9:10:09 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A monolithic baffle stack will work as good for a cheese grater as that 9" baffle stack will work as a muzzle brake on a 9mm. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So I could manufacture a baffle stack and market it as a cheese grater, and make a suppressor tube for that baffle stack and market it as a cookie cutter, and it would be legal to sell without restrictions? According to your logic I could do that because those parts were designed and marketed as kitchen utensils, which means they aren't legally suppressor parts because of your interpretation of what "any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication" means. I'd like to see a functional suppressor baffle that can also grate cheese. A cheese grater also has a specific definition on how it functions, so you can't just say "well if you moosh the cheese against it, the cheese falls apart".
A monolithic baffle stack will work as good for a cheese grater as that 9" baffle stack will work as a muzzle brake on a 9mm. They have submitted testing data that it effectively reduced recoil. Read the complaint. 
ETA: Page 22 |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2014 9:13:13 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What happened at Sig? It's as if one day they had a meeting and said, "You know what? Fuck the ATF." No kidding. I think I need a Sig. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2014 9:13:32 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Do the boots taste good? What's wrong with making them play with the rules they made? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2014 9:15:09 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No kidding. I think I need a Sig. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What happened at Sig? It's as if one day they had a meeting and said, "You know what? Fuck the ATF." No kidding. I think I need a Sig. I dont even really car for sigs. None of them really peal my banana. If you know what i mean, but i think i might need to take a harder look at them after all this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2014 9:19:36 PM EDT
[#11]
Quoted:
Sig Sauer sues ATF for calling its 'muzzle brake' a gun silencer NEWINGTON — Gun maker Sig Sauer has filed a civil suit against the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives claiming the federal agency wrongfully classified a “muzzle brake” Sig designed to reduce recoil, as an item “intended only for use” when making a silencer.
Sig claims that gun silencers are “subject to burdensome legal requirements” and by calling its muzzle brake a part for a silencer, the federal agency is subjecting it to “economic injury.” “If classified as a silencer, no market exists for the subject device given that it will not silence, muffle, or diminish the report of a firearm and yet it would still be subject to the burdensome requirements set forth above as if it really is a silencer,” Sig argues through Manchester attorney Mark Rouvalis and Virginia attorney Stephen Halbrook. ATF Director B. Todd Jones is named as defendant in Sig's lawsuit and has 21 days, after being served, to respond to the civil action, dated April 7. Sig claims it designed the muzzle brake which “effectively reduces recoil and muzzle rise when a shot is discharged” and as such, it's not subject to regulation under the federal Gun Control Act. Sig is rapidly becoming my favorite gun company. I wish the other big dogs had the balls to start taking blatant pokes at the ATF's bullshit. If Colt, Ruger, and S&W all stood up and started saying "Fuck You" in a collective voice, there might be some traction gained. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2014 9:40:48 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A monolithic baffle stack will work as good for a cheese grater as that 9" baffle stack will work as a muzzle brake on a 9mm. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So I could manufacture a baffle stack and market it as a cheese grater, and make a suppressor tube for that baffle stack and market it as a cookie cutter, and it would be legal to sell without restrictions? According to your logic I could do that because those parts were designed and marketed as kitchen utensils, which means they aren't legally suppressor parts because of your interpretation of what "any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication" means. I'd like to see a functional suppressor baffle that can also grate cheese. A cheese grater also has a specific definition on how it functions, so you can't just say "well if you moosh the cheese against it, the cheese falls apart".
A monolithic baffle stack will work as good for a cheese grater as that 9" baffle stack will work as a muzzle brake on a 9mm. Just using specifics, please explain the legal differences between this muzzle device and, say, an AAC 51T mount? please include SPECIFIC definitions for potentially ambiguous words. ETA: Honestly, you really cant, without classifying all suppressor mounts as suppressors themselves, or this being classified as a muzzle brake in some way. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2014 9:47:15 PM EDT
[#13]
I just bought another sig. I would love me an MPX
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2014 10:01:46 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There's the thing. The baffles/muzzle brake on the MPX is also intended to be used as a muzzle brake. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Is it true that all you need is the registered suppressor tube from Sig to make it a suppressor? It also needs an endcap that Sig would presumably sell with the tube. If that is true, then the "muzzle brake" is indeed a monolithic suppressor baffle stack. Isn't the BATF pretty clear on their stance that any suppressor parts are illegal without a tax stamp? here's the info from the BATF: The term “Firearm Silencer” or “Firearm Muffler” means any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm, including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for the use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication. Any device that meets the definition as stipulated above in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(24) is also subject to controls as defined in the National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C., Chapter 53 There's the thing. The baffles/muzzle brake on the MPX is also intended to be used as a muzzle brake. I have said this before AWC had their HyperDyne muzzle brake declared as a silencer part and had to stop making them because it contained a single K baffle. The K baffle in this case did not lower the sound signature and it was clearly serving in another capacity and not solely as a suppressor part, but it was still banned. I hope Sig wins as I also think suppressors should be an over the counter purchase but I doubt they will win. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2014 10:30:47 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have said this before AWC had their HyperDyne muzzle brake declared as a silencer part and had to stop making them because it contained a single K baffle. The K baffle in this case did not lower the sound signature and it was clearly serving in another capacity and not solely as a suppressor part, but it was still banned. I hope Sig wins as I also think suppressors should be an over the counter purchase but I doubt they will win. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Is it true that all you need is the registered suppressor tube from Sig to make it a suppressor? It also needs an endcap that Sig would presumably sell with the tube. If that is true, then the "muzzle brake" is indeed a monolithic suppressor baffle stack. Isn't the BATF pretty clear on their stance that any suppressor parts are illegal without a tax stamp? here's the info from the BATF: The term “Firearm Silencer” or “Firearm Muffler” means any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm, including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for the use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication. Any device that meets the definition as stipulated above in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(24) is also subject to controls as defined in the National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C., Chapter 53 There's the thing. The baffles/muzzle brake on the MPX is also intended to be used as a muzzle brake. I have said this before AWC had their HyperDyne muzzle brake declared as a silencer part and had to stop making them because it contained a single K baffle. The K baffle in this case did not lower the sound signature and it was clearly serving in another capacity and not solely as a suppressor part, but it was still banned. I hope Sig wins as I also think suppressors should be an over the counter purchase but I doubt they will win. Put a tube over this. It WILL suppress sound somewhat. ATF will have to articulate what makes it different. Is their argument going to be "muzzle brakes are only suppressor parts if they work really good as a baffle stack?" Because they already have a very old & contradictory ruling with the XM177 moderator. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2014 10:48:09 PM EDT
[#16]
Sig should win this easily.
I just hope that the case gets enough mainstream attention to show non-gun-people just how retarded most gun regulations are. While reading about this I had the thought, "what of all the integrally suppressed rifles". Many of the baffles or ports on these rifles are machined directly into the barrel or a permanently attached barrel extension. Minus the suppressor tube I have never seen these rifles or the barrel by themselves treated as an nfa item. I have seen rifles minus the tube legally transfer while people waited for the pending paperwork to come back on the serialized tube. ...also, I'll just leave this here: http://www.gem-tech.com/store/pc/MIST-22-3p929.htm And some of this, which is from January: 
"The slightly more awesome silencer is permanently attached to a custom 10/22. This integrally suppressed 10/22 is indeed actually integrally suppressed, with the barrel venting into the shroud before it even reaches the baffle stack. The nice thing about this rifle is that the barrel is a full 16 inches long with the permanently attached baffles, so you can buy the gun on a standard 4473 and then use it while you wait for the paperwork on the shroud (the serialized part) to come back from the NFA branch."
Link to original article |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2014 10:55:11 PM EDT
[#17]
For those of you saying you need a Sig, thought I'd drop this deal right here:
5" Sig 1911 Tac Ops and 3 stripped PSA lowers for $999. link Also, if PSA sees this and feels like sending me one for the free advertising, I wouldn't complain...... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2014 11:34:30 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Suppressors are a safety device, and should be framed as such. If someone has to defend their home from an attacker, why should childrens' ears be damaged? Why do Democrats hate children? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sig should consider reviewing their Federal LE pistol services for BATFE, if there are any. If there is one thing we can agree on, the suppressor and short barrel rifle/shotgun aspects of NFA need to go away. I'm for eliminating NFA altogether, but I err on the side of American Freedom pre-socialist, big government liberal anus FDR, call me crazy. Not so fast....there are some here who feel SBR and supressors are too dangerous to "fall into the wrong hands" and should remain part of the NFA process. Not to derail the thread but desire to abolish the NFA isn't as universal as you'd like to think. Really?...SBR AR should require a stamp, but a AR pistol shouldn't, because SBR are too dangerous and might fall into "the wrong hands"? You want this going on record as your position? Or are you going to open a "some pistols are too dangerous without a stamp" line of reasoning. Sometimes it's better to reread your post and clarify/explain in the post before hitting the submit button.
Not my position at all....this has been espoused by others in different threads. I think suppressors should be cash & carry and encouraged for use and barrel length restrictions are retarded. NFA should be DOA Suppressors are a safety device, and should be framed as such. If someone has to defend their home from an attacker, why should childrens' ears be damaged? Why do Democrats hate children?  . I believe both parts of your comment to be true
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2014 12:09:57 AM EDT
[#19]
I found a recent thread where ATF was overruled in calling a new muzzle brake design a suppressor.
ar15.com: The_Innovator_Enterprises_v__ATF_verdict_attempts_to_explain__what_s_a_suppressor_.html link in the Article: http://www.guns.com/2014/03/27/makes-innovator-enterprises-v-atf-suppressor-case-interesting/ “(The) ATF’s decision to classify the Stabilizer Brake as a ‘firearm silencer’ is ‘arbitrary and capricious’ for at least two reasons: the agency failed to ‘articulate a satisfactory explanation’ for its decision and the agency failed to ‘examine the relevant data’ before coming to a final conclusion. For these reasons, the agency action was ‘arbitrary and capricious,’ and must be set aside under the APA,” according to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruling against the ATF’s classification of the Innovator Enterprises Inc.
The Court found that the ATF did not provide an explanation for why it classified the Innovator Stabilizer Brake as a silencer and further slapped the company for not even bothering to check and see if the brake even decreased noise in the first place. From another Atricle: http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/03/20/66348.htm From there, the judge's assessment of the ATF's review became even more pointed.
"Hypotheticals further illustrate the weakness of this methodology," he wrote. "A mouse is not an 'elephant' solely because it has three characteristics that are common to known elephants: a tail, gray skin and four legs. A child's bike is not a 'motorcycle' solely because it has three characteristics common to known motorcycles: two rubber tires, handlebars, and a leather seat. And a Bud Light is not 'Single-Malt Scotch,' just because it is frequently served in a glass container, contains alcohol, and is available for purchase at a tavern. To close with a firearm-related example a hockey puck us not a 'rubber bullet,' just because it has rounded sides, is made of vulcanized rubber, and is capable of causing injury when launched at high speeds. Learning that one object has three characteristics in common with some category may not be very helpful in determining whether the object in question belongs in that category. "To make matters worse, other agency guidance uses a different set of characteristics - the six characteristics in the Classification letter appear not to be an exhaustive definitive list." http://www.scribd.com/doc/215912816/Innovator-v-B-Todd-Jones-ATF-Memo-in-Opposition-to-Plaintiff-Cross-motion-for-Summary-Judgment (NoloContendere link) ETA: link to judges Memorandum (returned to ATF for reconsideration) https://www.courtlistener.com/dcd/eCeY/innovator-enterprises-inc-v-jones/ ETA2: better link: https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2013cv0581-17 |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2014 3:05:28 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"Hey ATF! Our SIG arm brace is now made entirely of interlocking aluminum things that look like baffles and stores in this tube but is nowhere near the muzzle and the tube has no threads! Want to take a look? Want the lawyers to look at it with you?" 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2014 3:06:33 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A monolithic baffle stack will work as good for a cheese grater as that 9" baffle stack will work as a muzzle brake on a 9mm. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So I could manufacture a baffle stack and market it as a cheese grater, and make a suppressor tube for that baffle stack and market it as a cookie cutter, and it would be legal to sell without restrictions? According to your logic I could do that because those parts were designed and marketed as kitchen utensils, which means they aren't legally suppressor parts because of your interpretation of what "any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication" means. I'd like to see a functional suppressor baffle that can also grate cheese. A cheese grater also has a specific definition on how it functions, so you can't just say "well if you moosh the cheese against it, the cheese falls apart".
A monolithic baffle stack will work as good for a cheese grater as that 9" baffle stack will work as a muzzle brake on a 9mm. There is no requirement that the muzzle brake be the most efficent design. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2014 5:44:41 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lemme know what you find out on that, I've been curious to see how the new laws are gonna affect buying rifles. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I was already saving my shekels for a 716CQB SBR, if the new laws in the Philippines will allow me to still purchase one. Looks like I'll need to show them some more support! Lemme know what you find out on that, I've been curious to see how the new laws are gonna affect buying rifles. Not looking good. All the outfits that sold centerfire rifles are now selling only .22LR.  I can still shoot FA with my friends, but I was hoping to have something with a little oomph around the house.
The text of the law is here.. I had not heard this before, but new FA weapons can only be possessed by the government, although they are allowing FA weapons that were previously registered to be retained, as long as the registration and permits are kept current, but they cannot be transferred and must be surrendered to the PNP upon revocation or expiration of a permit or registration. Prior to this, if you could have a centerfire rifle, it could be FA. From what I see, semi-autos are still legal and classified as small arms, rather than light weapons, and can be registered. If you convert FA to semi, you have to have it done by a PNP Firearms and Explosives Office approved party, and the FA parts must be surrendered. I will have to see once I get home and can talk to a firearms lawyer. I will also be talking to some friends who are PNP senior commissioned officers. It still doesn't look good. I guess SWMBO might only be getting a pistol and a .22. I'll have to see if the RONI carbine kits, which are quite popular there, are still legal.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2014 5:55:08 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A monolithic baffle stack will work as good for a cheese grater as that 9" baffle stack will work as a muzzle brake on a 9mm. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So I could manufacture a baffle stack and market it as a cheese grater, and make a suppressor tube for that baffle stack and market it as a cookie cutter, and it would be legal to sell without restrictions? According to your logic I could do that because those parts were designed and marketed as kitchen utensils, which means they aren't legally suppressor parts because of your interpretation of what "any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication" means. I'd like to see a functional suppressor baffle that can also grate cheese. A cheese grater also has a specific definition on how it functions, so you can't just say "well if you moosh the cheese against it, the cheese falls apart".
A monolithic baffle stack will work as good for a cheese grater as that 9" baffle stack will work as a muzzle brake on a 9mm. Well the law is pretty clear that as long as it has an alternate use it should be legal. If the ATF stuck to the law somebody could sell cookie cutters with lightening holes in the center that just happen to fit inside a C cell Maglite. They could also sell Maglite end caps that are threaded 1/2-28 to attach to their patented flash light lengthening stick. They could also sell an end cap with a hole in the middle plugged with a rubber plug that goes where the bezel normally goes on a Maglite to turn it into a waterproof container. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2014 8:23:37 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
thanks Nolo Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Here is a copy of the complaint: http://www.scribd.com/doc/217525302/Sig-Sauer-v-ATF-Complaint thanks Nolo Yep. Just another case to follow. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2014 9:12:32 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There is no requirement that the muzzle brake be the most efficent design. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So I could manufacture a baffle stack and market it as a cheese grater, and make a suppressor tube for that baffle stack and market it as a cookie cutter, and it would be legal to sell without restrictions? According to your logic I could do that because those parts were designed and marketed as kitchen utensils, which means they aren't legally suppressor parts because of your interpretation of what "any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication" means. I'd like to see a functional suppressor baffle that can also grate cheese. A cheese grater also has a specific definition on how it functions, so you can't just say "well if you moosh the cheese against it, the cheese falls apart".
A monolithic baffle stack will work as good for a cheese grater as that 9" baffle stack will work as a muzzle brake on a 9mm. There is no requirement that the muzzle brake be the most efficent design. And there is no requirement that a cheese grater be the most efficient design. But the bottomline is that when SIG designed that "muzzle brake", they designed it FIRST as a silencer baffle stack that fits precisely into an optional silencer tube with the intended purpose of silencing the report of a firearm, so therefor it is a silencer part. The word "only" in the below silencer definition was put there so people wouldn't be charged with illegal suppressor parts if they owned common pipe, steel wool, rivets, washers etc with other real intended purposes. The term “Firearm Silencer” or “Firearm Muffler” means any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm, including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for the use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, and any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication.
Any device that meets the definition as stipulated above in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(24) is also subject to controls as defined in the National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C., Chapter 53 |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2014 9:22:30 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But the bottomline is that when SIG designed that "muzzle brake", they designed it FIRST as a silencer baffle stack that fits precisely into an optional silencer tube with the intended purpose of silencing the report of a firearm, so therefor it is a silencer part. The word "only" in the below silencer definition was put there so people wouldn't be charged with illegal suppressor parts if they owned common pipe, steel wool, rivets, washers etc with other real intended purposes. Quote HistoryQuoted:
But the bottomline is that when SIG designed that "muzzle brake", they designed it FIRST as a silencer baffle stack that fits precisely into an optional silencer tube with the intended purpose of silencing the report of a firearm, so therefor it is a silencer part. The word "only" in the below silencer definition was put there so people wouldn't be charged with illegal suppressor parts if they owned common pipe, steel wool, rivets, washers etc with other real intended purposes. The term “Firearm Silencer” or “Firearm Muffler” means any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm, including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for the use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, and any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication.
Any device that meets the definition as stipulated above in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(24) is also subject to controls as defined in the National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C., Chapter 53 This device does not meet either requirement despite your bulldog insistence that it does. Read the plain text of the statute: it does not meet the first part - it's a large gangly muzzle break that does not silence, muffle or diminish the report of a firearm. Nor does it meet the second since it's not ONLY being used in such an assembly or fabrication. Why are you so engaged in wanting Sig to be slapped down? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2014 9:26:39 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This device does not meet either requirement despite your bulldog insistence that it does. Read the plain text of the statute: it does not meet the first part - it's a large gangly muzzle break that does not silence, muffle or diminish the report of a firearm. Nor does it meet the second since it's not ONLY being used in such an assembly or fabrication. Why are you so engaged in wanting Sig to be slapped down? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
But the bottomline is that when SIG designed that "muzzle brake", they designed it FIRST as a silencer baffle stack that fits precisely into an optional silencer tube with the intended purpose of silencing the report of a firearm, so therefor it is a silencer part. The word "only" in the below silencer definition was put there so people wouldn't be charged with illegal suppressor parts if they owned common pipe, steel wool, rivets, washers etc with other real intended purposes. The term “Firearm Silencer” or “Firearm Muffler” means any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm, including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for the use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, and any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication.
Any device that meets the definition as stipulated above in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(24) is also subject to controls as defined in the National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C., Chapter 53 This device does not meet either requirement despite your bulldog insistence that it does. Read the plain text of the statute: it does not meet the first part - it's a large gangly muzzle break that does not silence, muffle or diminish the report of a firearm. Nor does it meet the second since it's not ONLY being used in such an assembly or fabrication. Why are you so engaged in wanting Sig to be slapped down? I have said numerous times in this thread that I hope SIG wins. You guys arguing that the word "only" makes SIG in the right, is akin to Bill Clinton arguing the meaning of the word "is". |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2014 9:30:21 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have said numerous times in this thread that I hope SIG wins. You guys arguing that the word "only" makes SIG in the right, is akin to Bill Clinton arguing the meaning of the word "is". I addressed both portions of the statute. Maybe you should work on that reading comprehension problem. I think what Sig is doing is brilliant. Marketing a product that meets the plain text of the statute and forcing BATFE to twist and doge to create a new meaning out of thin air. In the meantime all us basement dwellers cheer them on and (claim) we'll run out and buy their products. Will remain to see if either effort actually works but it will be interesting to see. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2014 9:33:29 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And there is no requirement that a cheese grater be the most efficient design. But the bottomline is that when SIG designed that "muzzle brake", they designed it FIRST as a silencer baffle stack that fits precisely into an optional silencer tube with the intended purpose of silencing the report of a firearm, so therefor it is a silencer part. The word "only" in the below silencer definition was put there so people wouldn't be charged with illegal suppressor parts if they owned common pipe, steel wool, rivets, washers etc with other real intended purposes. Quote HistoryQuoted:
And there is no requirement that a cheese grater be the most efficient design. But the bottomline is that when SIG designed that "muzzle brake", they designed it FIRST as a silencer baffle stack that fits precisely into an optional silencer tube with the intended purpose of silencing the report of a firearm, so therefor it is a silencer part. The word "only" in the below silencer definition was put there so people wouldn't be charged with illegal suppressor parts if they owned common pipe, steel wool, rivets, washers etc with other real intended purposes. The term “Firearm Silencer” or “Firearm Muffler” means any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm, including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for the use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, and any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication.
Any device that meets the definition as stipulated above in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(24) is also subject to controls as defined in the National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C., Chapter 53 You still haven't explained why a standard muzzle brake silencer adapter, which clearly acts in the same fashion as this brake, and also functions as a short baffle stack when used in combination with a suppressor tube is somehow different. What if the Surefire/AAC brake was theoretically longer and acted as half the baffles in the tube? What if it replaced all of the internal baffles? It doesn't change the fact that it acts as a brake absent the true silencer parts(the tube/endcap). |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2014 9:35:13 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have said this before AWC had their HyperDyne muzzle brake declared as a silencer part and had to stop making them because it contained a single K baffle. The K baffle in this case did not lower the sound signature and it was clearly serving in another capacity and not solely as a suppressor part, but it was still banned. I hope Sig wins as I also think suppressors should be an over the counter purchase but I doubt they will win. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Is it true that all you need is the registered suppressor tube from Sig to make it a suppressor? It also needs an endcap that Sig would presumably sell with the tube. If that is true, then the "muzzle brake" is indeed a monolithic suppressor baffle stack. Isn't the BATF pretty clear on their stance that any suppressor parts are illegal without a tax stamp? here's the info from the BATF: The term “Firearm Silencer” or “Firearm Muffler” means any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm, including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for the use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication. Any device that meets the definition as stipulated above in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(24) is also subject to controls as defined in the National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C., Chapter 53 There's the thing. The baffles/muzzle brake on the MPX is also intended to be used as a muzzle brake. I have said this before AWC had their HyperDyne muzzle brake declared as a silencer part and had to stop making them because it contained a single K baffle. The K baffle in this case did not lower the sound signature and it was clearly serving in another capacity and not solely as a suppressor part, but it was still banned. I hope Sig wins as I also think suppressors should be an over the counter purchase but I doubt they will win. 
FYI, it makes a 22 pistol sound like a 22 rifle 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2014 9:39:08 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I addressed both portions of the statute. Maybe you should work on that reading comprehension problem. I think what Sig is doing is brilliant. Marketing a product that meets the plain text of the statute and forcing BATFE to twist and doge to create a new meaning out of thin air. In the meantime all us basement dwellers cheer them on and (claim) we'll run out and buy their products. Will remain to see if either effort actually works but it will be interesting to see. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I have said numerous times in this thread that I hope SIG wins. You guys arguing that the word "only" makes SIG in the right, is akin to Bill Clinton arguing the meaning of the word "is". I addressed both portions of the statute. Maybe you should work on that reading comprehension problem. I think what Sig is doing is brilliant. Marketing a product that meets the plain text of the statute and forcing BATFE to twist and doge to create a new meaning out of thin air. In the meantime all us basement dwellers cheer them on and (claim) we'll run out and buy their products. Will remain to see if either effort actually works but it will be interesting to see. I hate the BATF as much as anyone, and I want to see Sig smack them good on this one, but when arguing issues I personally prefer to stay focused on the facts and reality, not propaganda and talking points devised to support the side I want to win. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2014 9:48:11 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You still haven't explained why a standard muzzle brake silencer adapter, which clearly acts in the same fashion as this brake, and also functions as a short baffle stack when used in combination with a suppressor tube is somehow different. What if the Surefire/AAC brake was theoretically longer and acted as half the baffles in the tube? What if it replaced all of the internal baffles? It doesn't change the fact that it acts as a brake absent the true silencer parts(the tube/endcap). Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
And there is no requirement that a cheese grater be the most efficient design. But the bottomline is that when SIG designed that "muzzle brake", they designed it FIRST as a silencer baffle stack that fits precisely into an optional silencer tube with the intended purpose of silencing the report of a firearm, so therefor it is a silencer part. The word "only" in the below silencer definition was put there so people wouldn't be charged with illegal suppressor parts if they owned common pipe, steel wool, rivets, washers etc with other real intended purposes. The term “Firearm Silencer” or “Firearm Muffler” means any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm, including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for the use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, and any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication.
Any device that meets the definition as stipulated above in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(24) is also subject to controls as defined in the National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C., Chapter 53 You still haven't explained why a standard muzzle brake silencer adapter, which clearly acts in the same fashion as this brake, and also functions as a short baffle stack when used in combination with a suppressor tube is somehow different. What if the Surefire/AAC brake was theoretically longer and acted as half the baffles in the tube? What if it replaced all of the internal baffles? It doesn't change the fact that it acts as a brake absent the true silencer parts(the tube/endcap). You start your argument out by creating a false premise that a standard muzzle brake silencer mounting device acts in the same fashion as this SIG muzzle brake. It clearly doesn't in all of its characteristics. So no point in even debating it. A mouse is not a squirrel simply because they both have fur, a tail, ears and four legs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2014 9:52:34 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I hate the BATF as much as anyone, and I want to see Sig smack them good on this one, but when arguing issues I personally prefer to stay focused on the facts and reality, not propaganda and talking points devised to support the side I want to win. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I have said numerous times in this thread that I hope SIG wins. You guys arguing that the word "only" makes SIG in the right, is akin to Bill Clinton arguing the meaning of the word "is". I addressed both portions of the statute. Maybe you should work on that reading comprehension problem. I think what Sig is doing is brilliant. Marketing a product that meets the plain text of the statute and forcing BATFE to twist and doge to create a new meaning out of thin air. In the meantime all us basement dwellers cheer them on and (claim) we'll run out and buy their products. Will remain to see if either effort actually works but it will be interesting to see. I hate the BATF as much as anyone, and I want to see Sig smack them good on this one, but when arguing issues I personally prefer to stay focused on the facts and reality, not propaganda and talking points devised to support the side I want to win. That's all well and good, but you're ignoring standard court practice in the interpretation of statutes. Courts have various canons of statutory interpretation, one of the most central being that they look at "plain language" and give meaning to each word written within the statute. You're looking at this from the perspective of "Sig intends it to be used as a baffle stack, therefore it must be a silencer". That's not what the statute says. It does not matter that one of the brake's intended uses is as a baffle stack. What matters, according to the cited statute, is whether its only intended use is as a silencer component. Additionally, courts will not create ambiguity where none exists, the statute is not ambiguous in its meaning. This is not propaganda, this is how courts decide cases that depend upon the interpretation of statutes. See also the cited ruling from the D.C. District Court: the BATFE is not permitted to declare something is a silencer or silencer component merely because it contains characteristics of silencers. Agency rulings are required to be supported by testing and investigation, the Tech. Branch has done neither as evidenced by the facts that 1) the brake reduces/moderates recoil, and 2) actually increases the report of the rifle. ETA: As much as you say you're staying focused on the facts, you're only focused on some of them. You're outright ignoring many or even most of the relevant facts that the courts will have to consider. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2014 9:54:56 AM EDT
[#34]
What is in danger here is the ATFs practices of using unpublished and sloppy procedures for making determinations.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2014 9:58:32 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You start your argument out by creating a false premise that a standard muzzle brake silencer mounting device acts in the same fashion as this SIG muzzle brake. It clearly doesn't in all of its characteristics. So no point in even debating it. A mouse is not a squirrel simply because they both have fur, a tail, ears and four legs. Quote HistoryQuoted:
You start your argument out by creating a false premise that a standard muzzle brake silencer mounting device acts in the same fashion as this SIG muzzle brake. It clearly doesn't in all of its characteristics. So no point in even debating it. A mouse is not a squirrel simply because they both have fur, a tail, ears and four legs. What do you think the brake does when there is a tube of metal wrapped around it?
I personally use brakes on all of my cans to act as a sacrificial baffle to protect the ones inside the can. ETA: The M4SD-II muzzle brake provides high efficiency recoil reduction and two durable, sacrificial baffles for use inside M4SD-II sound suppressors. Somebody better tell Griffin Armament they are selling silencer baffles.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2014 10:09:39 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's all well and good, but you're ignoring standard court practice in the interpretation of statutes. Courts have various canons of statutory interpretation, one of the most central being that they look at "plain language" and give meaning to each word written within the statute. You're looking at this from the perspective of "Sig intends it to be used as a baffle stack, therefore it must be a silencer". That's not what the statute says. It does not matter that one of the brake's intended uses is as a baffle stack. What matters, according to the cited statute, is whether its only intended use is as a silencer component. Additionally, courts will not create ambiguity where none exists, the statute is not ambiguous in its meaning. This is not propaganda, this is how courts decide cases that depend upon the interpretation of statutes. See also the cited ruling from the D.C. District Court: the BATFE is not permitted to declare something is a silencer or silencer component merely because it contains characteristics of silencers. Agency rulings are required to be supported by testing and investigation, the Tech. Branch has done neither as evidenced by the facts that 1) the brake reduces/moderates recoil, and 2) actually increases the report of the rifle. ETA: As much as you say you're staying focused on the facts, you're only focused on some of them. You're outright ignoring many or even most of the relevant facts that the courts will have to consider. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I have said numerous times in this thread that I hope SIG wins. You guys arguing that the word "only" makes SIG in the right, is akin to Bill Clinton arguing the meaning of the word "is". I addressed both portions of the statute. Maybe you should work on that reading comprehension problem. I think what Sig is doing is brilliant. Marketing a product that meets the plain text of the statute and forcing BATFE to twist and doge to create a new meaning out of thin air. In the meantime all us basement dwellers cheer them on and (claim) we'll run out and buy their products. Will remain to see if either effort actually works but it will be interesting to see. I hate the BATF as much as anyone, and I want to see Sig smack them good on this one, but when arguing issues I personally prefer to stay focused on the facts and reality, not propaganda and talking points devised to support the side I want to win. That's all well and good, but you're ignoring standard court practice in the interpretation of statutes. Courts have various canons of statutory interpretation, one of the most central being that they look at "plain language" and give meaning to each word written within the statute. You're looking at this from the perspective of "Sig intends it to be used as a baffle stack, therefore it must be a silencer". That's not what the statute says. It does not matter that one of the brake's intended uses is as a baffle stack. What matters, according to the cited statute, is whether its only intended use is as a silencer component. Additionally, courts will not create ambiguity where none exists, the statute is not ambiguous in its meaning. This is not propaganda, this is how courts decide cases that depend upon the interpretation of statutes. See also the cited ruling from the D.C. District Court: the BATFE is not permitted to declare something is a silencer or silencer component merely because it contains characteristics of silencers. Agency rulings are required to be supported by testing and investigation, the Tech. Branch has done neither as evidenced by the facts that 1) the brake reduces/moderates recoil, and 2) actually increases the report of the rifle. ETA: As much as you say you're staying focused on the facts, you're only focused on some of them. You're outright ignoring many or even most of the relevant facts that the courts will have to consider. You're overlooking the fact that courts also decide cases by interpreting the statute / law in the light of the purposes which the legislature had in mind when creating the statute / law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2014 10:12:20 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What do you think the brake does when there is a tube of metal wrapped around it?
I personally use brakes on all of my cans to act as a sacrificial baffle to protect the ones inside the can. ETA: Somebody better tell Griffin Armament they are selling silencer baffles. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You start your argument out by creating a false premise that a standard muzzle brake silencer mounting device acts in the same fashion as this SIG muzzle brake. It clearly doesn't in all of its characteristics. So no point in even debating it. A mouse is not a squirrel simply because they both have fur, a tail, ears and four legs. What do you think the brake does when there is a tube of metal wrapped around it?
I personally use brakes on all of my cans to act as a sacrificial baffle to protect the ones inside the can. ETA: The M4SD-II muzzle brake provides high efficiency recoil reduction and two durable, sacrificial baffles for use inside M4SD-II sound suppressors. Somebody better tell Griffin Armament they are selling silencer baffles. 57Strat is right in his thinking "A mouse is not a squirrel simply because they both have fur, a tail, ears and four legs", he is just drawing the wrong conclusion. Just because a muzzle brake has baffles, is made with threads, could be used in a silencer, and is different then other brakes doesn't make it a silencer "ONLY" part. Even if the ATF thinks it is. A federal judge just ruled on this last week. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2014 10:13:20 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're overlooking the fact that courts also decide cases by interpreting the statute / law in the light of the purposes which the legislature had in mind when creating the statute / law. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I have said numerous times in this thread that I hope SIG wins. You guys arguing that the word "only" makes SIG in the right, is akin to Bill Clinton arguing the meaning of the word "is". I addressed both portions of the statute. Maybe you should work on that reading comprehension problem. I think what Sig is doing is brilliant. Marketing a product that meets the plain text of the statute and forcing BATFE to twist and doge to create a new meaning out of thin air. In the meantime all us basement dwellers cheer them on and (claim) we'll run out and buy their products. Will remain to see if either effort actually works but it will be interesting to see. I hate the BATF as much as anyone, and I want to see Sig smack them good on this one, but when arguing issues I personally prefer to stay focused on the facts and reality, not propaganda and talking points devised to support the side I want to win. That's all well and good, but you're ignoring standard court practice in the interpretation of statutes. Courts have various canons of statutory interpretation, one of the most central being that they look at "plain language" and give meaning to each word written within the statute. You're looking at this from the perspective of "Sig intends it to be used as a baffle stack, therefore it must be a silencer". That's not what the statute says. It does not matter that one of the brake's intended uses is as a baffle stack. What matters, according to the cited statute, is whether its only intended use is as a silencer component. Additionally, courts will not create ambiguity where none exists, the statute is not ambiguous in its meaning. This is not propaganda, this is how courts decide cases that depend upon the interpretation of statutes. See also the cited ruling from the D.C. District Court: the BATFE is not permitted to declare something is a silencer or silencer component merely because it contains characteristics of silencers. Agency rulings are required to be supported by testing and investigation, the Tech. Branch has done neither as evidenced by the facts that 1) the brake reduces/moderates recoil, and 2) actually increases the report of the rifle. ETA: As much as you say you're staying focused on the facts, you're only focused on some of them. You're outright ignoring many or even most of the relevant facts that the courts will have to consider. You're overlooking the fact that courts also decide cases by interpreting the statute / law in the light of the purposes which the legislature had in mind when creating the statute / law. Only if the statute is ambiguous. Additionally, another interpretation of the statute would render words meaningless. Courts will not do that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2014 10:18:27 AM EDT
[#39]
We have a gunshow dealer around here that all he sells is these thread on oil filter adaptors and now muzzle brakes/flash hiders with that thread on them. The guy just HAS to be a fed plant. I know it. I saw a YouTube video of that device. You attach it to the muzzle and screw on an oil filter. It was demonstrated with a .22 pistol and .22 rifle. In the video, they clearly state that you need a stamp for it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2014 10:18:56 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: i just desk popped my mosquito in celebration... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2014 10:25:24 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I saw a YouTube video of that device. You attach it to the muzzle and screw on an oil filter. It was demonstrated with a .22 pistol and .22 rifle. In the video, they clearly state that you need a stamp for it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
We have a gunshow dealer around here that all he sells is these thread on oil filter adaptors and now muzzle brakes/flash hiders with that thread on them. The guy just HAS to be a fed plant. I know it. I saw a YouTube video of that device. You attach it to the muzzle and screw on an oil filter. It was demonstrated with a .22 pistol and .22 rifle. In the video, they clearly state that you need a stamp for it. I'm sure everyone who buys one is serializing and dropping 200 bucks on a Form 1 for their oil filters. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2014 10:32:12 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You start your argument out by creating a false premise that a standard muzzle brake silencer mounting device acts in the same fashion as this SIG muzzle brake. It clearly doesn't in all of its characteristics. Both contain baffles. Both redirect gasses to reduce recoil. Standard muzzle brakes make the report louder. It *appears* the Sig version also makes the report of the weapon louder. Both provide mounting attachment for a suppressor. When a muzzle brake is pinned into place both are permanently attached to the barrel. How are they different again? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2014 10:34:26 AM EDT
[#43]
If we apply 57strats logic then pop bottles are silencers. You can easily silence a 22 with a 2 ltr coke bottle and some duct tape so they must be regulated also, right?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2014 10:43:44 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Both contain baffles. Both redirect gasses to reduce recoil. Standard muzzle brakes make the report louder. It *appears* the Sig version also makes the report of the weapon louder. Both provide mounting attachment for a suppressor. When a muzzle brake is pinned into place both are permanently attached to the barrel. How are they different again? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You start your argument out by creating a false premise that a standard muzzle brake silencer mounting device acts in the same fashion as this SIG muzzle brake. It clearly doesn't in all of its characteristics. Both contain baffles. Both redirect gasses to reduce recoil. Standard muzzle brakes make the report louder. It *appears* the Sig version also makes the report of the weapon louder. Both provide mounting attachment for a suppressor. When a muzzle brake is pinned into place both are permanently attached to the barrel. How are they different again? How bout the fact that the SIG "muzzle brake" was designed first and primarily as a monolithic silencer baffle stack designed to fit perfectly into a optional suppressor tube that then makes it into a functional silencer that reduces the report of a firearm. Did you watch this SIG Marketing Video? The Sig "muzzle brake" is a key component of a silencer (the complete internal baffle stack). Sig Marketing Video |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2014 10:49:36 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How bout the fact that the SIG "muzzle brake" was designed first and primarily as a monolithic silencer baffle stack designed to fit perfectly into a optional suppressor tube that then makes it into a functional silencer that reduces the report of a firearm. Did you watch this SIG Marketing Video? The Sig "muzzle brake" is a key component of a silencer (the complete internal baffle stack). Sig Marketing Video Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You start your argument out by creating a false premise that a standard muzzle brake silencer mounting device acts in the same fashion as this SIG muzzle brake. It clearly doesn't in all of its characteristics. Both contain baffles. Both redirect gasses to reduce recoil. Standard muzzle brakes make the report louder. It *appears* the Sig version also makes the report of the weapon louder. Both provide mounting attachment for a suppressor. When a muzzle brake is pinned into place both are permanently attached to the barrel. How are they different again? How bout the fact that the SIG "muzzle brake" was designed first and primarily as a monolithic silencer baffle stack designed to fit perfectly into a optional suppressor tube that then makes it into a functional silencer that reduces the report of a firearm. Did you watch this SIG Marketing Video? The Sig "muzzle brake" is a key component of a silencer (the complete internal baffle stack). Sig Marketing Video I think the words you are looking for are: no, there is no practical difference between the two at all. Also, don't you think Surefire designed their muzzle brakes to fit perfectly into their suppressor tube to make it part of a functional silencer? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2014 10:51:10 AM EDT
[#46]
Really makes me want a bolt action 300 AAC with an integral "muzzle brake" in the 16" barrel.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2014 10:52:46 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Only if the statute is ambiguous. Additionally, another interpretation of the statute would render words meaningless. Courts will not do that. 
Courts bend statutes almost as far as they bend the Constitution. For an excellent example of the USSC bending the Constitution, I recommend the case which made all this controversy possible: United States v. Miller. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2014 10:55:22 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think the words you are looking for are: no, there is no practical difference between the two at all. Also, don't you think Surefire designed their muzzle brakes to fit perfectly into their suppressor tube to make it part of a functional silencer? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You start your argument out by creating a false premise that a standard muzzle brake silencer mounting device acts in the same fashion as this SIG muzzle brake. It clearly doesn't in all of its characteristics. Both contain baffles. Both redirect gasses to reduce recoil. Standard muzzle brakes make the report louder. It *appears* the Sig version also makes the report of the weapon louder. Both provide mounting attachment for a suppressor. When a muzzle brake is pinned into place both are permanently attached to the barrel. How are they different again? How bout the fact that the SIG "muzzle brake" was designed first and primarily as a monolithic silencer baffle stack designed to fit perfectly into a optional suppressor tube that then makes it into a functional silencer that reduces the report of a firearm. Did you watch this SIG Marketing Video? The Sig "muzzle brake" is a key component of a silencer (the complete internal baffle stack). Sig Marketing Video I think the words you are looking for are: no, there is no practical difference between the two at all. Also, don't you think Surefire designed their muzzle brakes to fit perfectly into their suppressor tube to make it part of a functional silencer? Why don't you give AAC a call and tell them you want to buy some of their monolithic suppressor cores and that you plan on mounting them without a tube and use them as a muzzle brake. Let me know what they say and if they'll sell them to you without proof of a tax stamp for each core. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2014 11:00:39 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why don't you give AAC a call and tell them you want to buy some of their monolithic suppressor cores and that you plan on mounting them without a tube and use them as a muzzle brake. Let me know what they say and if they'll sell them to you without proof of a tax stamp for each core. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You start your argument out by creating a false premise that a standard muzzle brake silencer mounting device acts in the same fashion as this SIG muzzle brake. It clearly doesn't in all of its characteristics. Both contain baffles. Both redirect gasses to reduce recoil. Standard muzzle brakes make the report louder. It *appears* the Sig version also makes the report of the weapon louder. Both provide mounting attachment for a suppressor. When a muzzle brake is pinned into place both are permanently attached to the barrel. How are they different again? How bout the fact that the SIG "muzzle brake" was designed first and primarily as a monolithic silencer baffle stack designed to fit perfectly into a optional suppressor tube that then makes it into a functional silencer that reduces the report of a firearm. Did you watch this SIG Marketing Video? The Sig "muzzle brake" is a key component of a silencer (the complete internal baffle stack). Sig Marketing Video I think the words you are looking for are: no, there is no practical difference between the two at all. Also, don't you think Surefire designed their muzzle brakes to fit perfectly into their suppressor tube to make it part of a functional silencer? Why don't you give AAC a call and tell them you want to buy some of their monolithic suppressor cores and that you plan on mounting them without a tube and use them as a muzzle brake. Let me know what they say and if they'll sell them to you without proof of a tax stamp for each core. So basically what you are saying is you've completely backed yourself into a corner and just can't admit that practically speaking there is no difference between the sig product and a (for example) Surefire muzzle brake/suppressor mount.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2014 11:03:04 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So basically what you are saying is you've completely backed yourself into a corner and just can't admit that practically speaking there is no difference between the sig product and a (for example) Surefire muzzle brake/suppressor mount.
BS. Did you call AAC? |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
