User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/9/2014 5:20:06 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Or have the sleeve mounted in bungee cords at your range and you can shoot silenced using the "glory hole." 
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No pics of the disputed device in OP or link. Fail. Yeah I was thinking the same.. This? http://www.guns.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/sig-mdx-1.jpg yep the baffles are already in place just have to form 1 it and buy the sleeve and boom silenced. Or have the sleeve mounted in bungee cords at your range and you can shoot silenced using the "glory hole."
Lol! |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2014 5:20:26 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Or keep oil filters and "solvent traps" around the house. Or have washers and steel wool in the same cardboard box! Stupid, capricious laws.. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If owning a baffle stack isn't a violation of the NFA rules then why can't I buy replacement wipes for my SWD m10 can? Or keep oil filters and "solvent traps" around the house. Or have washers and steel wool in the same cardboard box! Stupid, capricious laws.. The solvent trap adapters would be an obvious candidate for a suit against batfe based on the recent ruling, but no one with Sig's deep pockets is backing them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2014 5:21:02 PM EDT
[#3]
Good.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2014 5:21:30 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why? Technically, it's as much a suppressor part as an AAC 18/51t muzzle brake. Good for Sig. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No pics of the disputed device in OP or link. Fail. If it is this, then Sig might have one hell of a battle. 
http://twobirdsflyingpub.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/adam-painchaud-sig-sauer-mpx.jpg http://truthaboutguns-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/448x299xP1210439-900x601.jpg.pagespeed.ic.gaZ0fTHlXw.jpg Why? Technically, it's as much a suppressor part as an AAC 18/51t muzzle brake. Good for Sig. I was pretty sure that a baffle stack was considered an NFA item. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2014 5:22:13 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
SIG, you've got a lot of nice .gov contracts-be a shame if anything happened to them. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Will Sig be the next Ares? No, SIG has significant money. SIG, you've got a lot of nice .gov contracts-be a shame if anything happened to them. Would be great if ALL of the gun manufacturers decided to not sell any arms to the ATF. Works both ways. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2014 5:23:22 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Does the ATF actually understand firearms components? I expect it from people like Feinstein, Bloomberg, and Piers Morgan, but the ATF - wtf? Well, it does seem tricky to define suppressor in such a way that it encompasses suppressors and not non-suppressors while also not allowing for loopholes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2014 5:23:53 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If owning a baffle stack isn't a violation of the NFA rules then why can't I buy replacement wipes for my SWD m10 can? thats the whole point in challenging it..
its a Tarp! |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2014 5:23:56 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Would be great if ALL of the gun manufacturers decided to not sell any arms to the ATF. Works both ways. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Will Sig be the next Ares? No, SIG has significant money. SIG, you've got a lot of nice .gov contracts-be a shame if anything happened to them. Would be great if ALL of the gun manufacturers decided to not sell any arms to the ATF. Works both ways. Sig already lost an ATF contract. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2014 5:26:02 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I was pretty sure that a baffle stack was considered an NFA item. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No pics of the disputed device in OP or link. Fail. If it is this, then Sig might have one hell of a battle.
http://twobirdsflyingpub.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/adam-painchaud-sig-sauer-mpx.jpg http://truthaboutguns-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/448x299xP1210439-900x601.jpg.pagespeed.ic.gaZ0fTHlXw.jpg Why? Technically, it's as much a suppressor part as an AAC 18/51t muzzle brake. Good for Sig. I was pretty sure that a baffle stack was considered an NFA item. It's as much a baffle stack as a muzzle brake is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2014 5:27:05 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Reducing noise by 10 decibels would actually be quite impressive (without the sleeve). Really impressive. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Does that baffle system have any real effect on noise? With the sleeve on, it seems to work well http://vimeo.com/57191957 It should, if that's what it's designed for. 
I just want to make sure there's no case the ATF could make of "it reduces noise level by 10 decibels, now you're gonna get raped." Reducing noise by 10 decibels would actually be quite impressive (without the sleeve). Really impressive. Especially since every 10 dBSPL is a doubling or halving of the perceived sound. Doing this with baffles alone would be a neat acoustical trick. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2014 5:27:48 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Would be great if ALL of the gun manufacturers decided to not sell any arms to the ATF. Works both ways. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Will Sig be the next Ares? No, SIG has significant money. SIG, you've got a lot of nice .gov contracts-be a shame if anything happened to them. Would be great if ALL of the gun manufacturers decided to not sell any arms to the ATF. Works both ways. Then they'd have to get their guns from democrat state Senators, or HK (because, well....you know )
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2014 5:30:18 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Good FPNI I love their apparent dick-swinging right in front of the ATF over the past year or so. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2014 5:34:02 PM EDT
[#13]
I love the concept - abet the ONLY reason the concept exists is because of the stupid SBR Rules.
I don't really need a 9mm at the momennt - but perhaps one could grow on me. Would like to see the concept applied to 300blk's. I have a hard time thinking a 9mm is ballisticly superior to the 300blk. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2014 5:36:05 PM EDT
[#14]
....and here come the Nancy's trying to protect their tax stamp investments. Go Sig!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2014 5:37:58 PM EDT
[#15]
Sometimes they make it hard for me to be mad at them.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2014 5:42:39 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: ....and here come the Nancy's trying to protect their tax stamp investments. Go Sig!  And here are the people who are ignorant of NFA laws, such as yourself. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2014 5:43:26 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The solvent trap adapters would be an obvious candidate for a suit against batfe based on the recent ruling, but no one with Sig's deep pockets is backing them. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If owning a baffle stack isn't a violation of the NFA rules then why can't I buy replacement wipes for my SWD m10 can? Or keep oil filters and "solvent traps" around the house. Or have washers and steel wool in the same cardboard box! Stupid, capricious laws.. The solvent trap adapters would be an obvious candidate for a suit against batfe based on the recent ruling, but no one with Sig's deep pockets is backing them. If only we had a multi-million member advocacy group for guns and gun people. *sigh* |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2014 5:48:18 PM EDT
[#18]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2014 5:50:54 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Good luck.. Since the 1986 FOPA legislation, any part of a silencer is considered a silencer itself. so how can those "golf ball launchers" and "fake suppressors" not fall under that same category? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2014 5:51:08 PM EDT
[#20]
I am going to purchase a SIG 556Xi soon as I can find one
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Im about to buy another Sig.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2014 5:54:21 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The only gun on my wishlist is the MPX-C with the muzzle break. Why would you want a gun with a broken muzzle? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2014 5:55:15 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The muzzle brake is assbackwards if you want to prevent muzzle rise. dude, shut the fuck up
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2014 5:57:39 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If only we had a multi-million member advocacy group for guns and gun people. *sigh* Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If owning a baffle stack isn't a violation of the NFA rules then why can't I buy replacement wipes for my SWD m10 can? Or keep oil filters and "solvent traps" around the house. Or have washers and steel wool in the same cardboard box! Stupid, capricious laws.. The solvent trap adapters would be an obvious candidate for a suit against batfe based on the recent ruling, but no one with Sig's deep pockets is backing them. If only we had a multi-million member advocacy group for guns and gun people. *sigh* Y'all don't have such a group in China? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2014 5:58:02 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What happened at Sig? It's as if one day they had a meeting and said, "You know what? Fuck the ATF." I don't know, but I like it. Cause fuck the ATF.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2014 5:58:27 PM EDT
[#25]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2014 5:58:43 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Then they'd have to get their guns from democrat state Senators, or HK (because, well....you know )
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Will Sig be the next Ares? No, SIG has significant money. SIG, you've got a lot of nice .gov contracts-be a shame if anything happened to them. Would be great if ALL of the gun manufacturers decided to not sell any arms to the ATF. Works both ways. Then they'd have to get their guns from democrat state Senators, or HK (because, well....you know )
Or Glock. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2014 6:00:58 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's a supressor baffle stack, without the external casing, permanently attached to the barrel. If you put a metal sleeve on it, it IS a supressor, but until you do (presumably on a NFA Form 1 if you wanted to), it's clearly not a supressor. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: No pics of the disputed device in OP or link. Fail. It's a supressor baffle stack, without the external casing, permanently attached to the barrel. If you put a metal sleeve on it, it IS a supressor, but until you do (presumably on a NFA Form 1 if you wanted to), it's clearly not a supressor. Is it just me, or is there really no reason to create this device unless the whole intent is to fuck with the ATF? Which is pretty much double plus cool in my book.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2014 6:01:39 PM EDT
[#28]
FUCK YOU ATF!
GO SIG
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2014 6:02:48 PM EDT
[#29]
This makes me happy to say I purchased my first Sig yesterday.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2014 6:03:57 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Option 3: a no knock raid on Sig HQ and some claims about providing guns to Mexican cartels? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 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. Should we expect a "my bad" from the ATF or a "we're the government and we say so" response? Option 3: a no knock raid on Sig HQ and some claims about providing guns to Mexican cartels? I don't think that the Swiss would look kindly on that.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2014 6:08:08 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: SIG, you've got a lot of nice .gov contracts-be a shame if anything happened to them. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Will Sig be the next Ares? No, SIG has significant money. SIG, you've got a lot of nice .gov contracts-be a shame if anything happened to them. The SEALS, who don't give a shit what the ATF says, and a bunch of foreign contracts, who don't give a shit what the ATF says. I doubt that US DOJ contracts are all that big of sales area for them. And just fighting the ATF will sell millions of guns to US civilians.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2014 6:10:30 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's a supressor baffle stack, without the external casing, permanently attached to the barrel. If you put a metal sleeve on it, it IS a supressor, but until you do (presumably on a NFA Form 1 if you wanted to), it's clearly not a supressor. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
No pics of the disputed device in OP or link. Fail. It's a supressor baffle stack, without the external casing, permanently attached to the barrel. If you put a metal sleeve on it, it IS a supressor, but until you do (presumably on a NFA Form 1 if you wanted to), it's clearly not a supressor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2014 6:13:42 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
thats the whole point in challenging it..
its a Tarp! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If owning a baffle stack isn't a violation of the NFA rules then why can't I buy replacement wipes for my SWD m10 can? thats the whole point in challenging it..
its a Tarp! Awesome. Cause I would like to avoid paying 200 tax stamp for a rubber wiper. 
But alas the ATF has already ruled it a suppressor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2014 6:15:07 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Awesome. Cause I would like to avoid paying 200 tax stamp for a rubber wiper.
But alas the ATF has already ruled it a suppressor. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If owning a baffle stack isn't a violation of the NFA rules then why can't I buy replacement wipes for my SWD m10 can? thats the whole point in challenging it..
its a Tarp! Awesome. Cause I would like to avoid paying 200 tax stamp for a rubber wiper.
But alas the ATF has already ruled it a suppressor. Can you not make your own to replace the one in your M10 can? Or will that end up with you in club fed? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2014 6:16:44 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hopefully it does. I honestly have no idea what that would do to the sound. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Does that baffle system have any real effect on noise? If anything, it should make it louder.  Hopefully it does. I honestly have no idea what that would do to the sound. Sledge Hammer's Loudner has been achieved in the real world. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2014 6:17:12 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Can you not make your own to replace the one in your M10 can? Or will that end up with you in club fed? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If owning a baffle stack isn't a violation of the NFA rules then why can't I buy replacement wipes for my SWD m10 can? thats the whole point in challenging it..
its a Tarp! Awesome. Cause I would like to avoid paying 200 tax stamp for a rubber wiper.
But alas the ATF has already ruled it a suppressor. Can you not make your own to replace the one in your M10 can? Or will that end up with you in club fed? I was told that I would be manufacturing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2014 6:18:07 PM EDT
[#37]
In b4 they found kiddy porn on SIG's computers.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2014 6:18:37 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What happened at Sig? It's as if one day they had a meeting and said, "You know what? Fuck the ATF." |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2014 6:21:00 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lol! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No pics of the disputed device in OP or link. Fail. Yeah I was thinking the same.. This? http://www.guns.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/sig-mdx-1.jpg yep the baffles are already in place just have to form 1 it and buy the sleeve and boom silenced. Or have the sleeve mounted in bungee cords at your range and you can shoot silenced using the "glory hole."
Lol! Just a hunch but I'm betting a google search for "gloryhole" would be a million pages or more before you found anything about guns |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2014 6:22:50 PM EDT
[#40]
Trolling level: Weapons grade
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2014 6:23:22 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Good luck.. Since the 1986 FOPA legislation, any part of a silencer is considered a silencer itself. It's not "part of a silencer" until a silencer is made. So if someone Form 1's a sleeve and assembles it into a silencer, it's no longer a muzzle brake, cannot become a muzzle brake again. Until then, it's not a silencer part. The logic that it is, when no silencer has yet existed, is akin to saying every rifle is a pistol because you can cut the stock off and make it less than 26". However, precedence is that a rifle can't be a pistol and a pistol can't become a rifle, so a pistol cannot exist when a pistol has not yet been made. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2014 6:25:36 PM EDT
[#42]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2014 6:26:26 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's a supressor baffle stack, without the external casing, permanently attached to the barrel. If you put a metal sleeve on it, it IS a supressor, but until you do (presumably on a NFA Form 1 if you wanted to), it's clearly not a supressor. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
No pics of the disputed device in OP or link. Fail. It's a supressor baffle stack, without the external casing, permanently attached to the barrel. If you put a metal sleeve on it, it IS a supressor, but until you do (presumably on a NFA Form 1 if you wanted to), it's clearly not a supressor. so I wonder ....just thinking out loud if they are going to make a "STORAGE" cover that screws on to keep any unwanted dirt and debris out of the barrel. O mean you HAVE to keep it clean
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2014 6:27:11 PM EDT
[#44]
Sig has gained a ton of my respect in the last few years. I just might buy one of their pistols again... haven't had one since my 226 years ago.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2014 6:28:09 PM EDT
[#45]
I had no idea those guns existed.
Any idea what retail prices are going to be? Those look fucking awesome! |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2014 6:28:44 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sig likes to fight the Feds! Time for another Sig This! |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2014 6:32:18 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Option 3: a no knock raid on Sig HQ and some claims about providing guns to Mexican cartels? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. Should we expect a "my bad" from the ATF or a "we're the government and we say so" response? Option 3: a no knock raid on Sig HQ and some claims about providing guns to Mexican cartels? I would pay my own money to represent SIG in that case. I already have my opening statement ready: "Ladies and gentlemen, I'm kac, and I represent SIG. In this case, the BATFE is charging SIG with providing guns to the cartels. Ha. Hahaha. Hahahahhahahahhaahahahahhahahahahhahah. [Wipes tears from eyes from laughing and sits down] I think that's a hell of an opening. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2014 6:37:39 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If it is this, then Sig might have one hell of a battle. http://twobirdsflyingpub.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/adam-painchaud-sig-sauer-mpx.jpg http://truthaboutguns-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/448x299xP1210439-900x601.jpg.pagespeed.ic.gaZ0fTHlXw.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: No pics of the disputed device in OP or link. Fail. If it is this, then Sig might have one hell of a battle. http://twobirdsflyingpub.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/adam-painchaud-sig-sauer-mpx.jpg http://truthaboutguns-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/448x299xP1210439-900x601.jpg.pagespeed.ic.gaZ0fTHlXw.jpg Well good luck to them anyway
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2014 6:39:38 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm not sure what you are responding to.  My point is merely that OF COURSE it's not really going to be an effective muzzle brake, because it was designed to be a baffle stack, not a muzzle brake.I agree completely that it's NOT a suppressor, and I think SIG are being hilariously clever by doing this. . Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The muzzle brake is assbackwards if you want to prevent muzzle rise. You do understand that's NOT its purpose, right? According to that one federal judge, that doesn't matter. Law says the device has to reduce the sound of the shot. Actually has to, and the ATF has to show it. The design, the intent, and the parts used don't count unless the sound level drops. That judge really shoved a boot up the ass of how ATF decides shit. I'm not sure what you are responding to. My point is merely that OF COURSE it's not really going to be an effective muzzle brake, because it was designed to be a baffle stack, not a muzzle brake.I agree completely that it's NOT a suppressor, and I think SIG are being hilariously clever by doing this. .  |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2014 6:42:15 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Would be great if ALL of the gun manufacturers decided to not sell any arms to the ATF. Works both ways. You are joking, right? Troy would always step in. I hear they have just the man to coddle fed balls. You cant have nice shit because of scumbags. And there are always scumbags. That said, I would be expecting anytime now to hear they batbunch are "reexamining the Sig Arm Brace for a possible reclassification". |
|
|
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.
