Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Site Notices
3/20/2017 5:03:23 PM
Posted: 6/2/2001 4:24:04 PM EDT
Since it appears to be legal to ream out a Flash suppressor(ala-the group purchase rifle). What if you would port your ar-15 barrel with holes to line up with the slots on the pressed on Flash suppresor and reamed out the first 3/4 inches of your barrel. The flash suppressor would only be there for cosmetics as it is on the group purchase rifle. Legal or not?
Link Posted: 6/2/2001 11:54:14 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/8/2001 5:05:42 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Troy: If it reduced flash signature, it would be illegal, per BATF. The LEGR design is ok because the bare barrel extends virtually to the end of the fake FS, so there's no flash suppression. Troy maybe you did not understand. PICTURE-the group purchase rifle, with the fake flash suppressor in exactly the same position on the barrell. the only difference is the last 1/2 inch of the barrel is honed out and has holes lined up extactly with the flash suppressors slots. The flash signature would be the same wether you pulled off the flash suppressor(compensator) or just had the ported barrel. NO change in the flash signature is exactly what i am saying.
Link Posted: 6/8/2001 5:07:22 PM EDT
btt
Link Posted: 6/8/2001 6:25:31 PM EDT
None of my business, really, but is there a reason you would want to do that? Is this just a machine shop exercise or is there some benefit to doing that (and at the risk of screwing up your barrel)? Just curious.
Link Posted: 6/10/2001 3:14:22 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/10/2001 3:29:31 AM EDT
Troy already answere the question. IF IT REDUCES MUZZLE FLASH, THEN IT IS ILLEGAL!
Link Posted: 6/10/2001 4:56:05 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/10/2001 4:56:35 AM EDT by locknload]
Originally Posted By Q-Man: Troy already answere the question. IF IT REDUCES MUZZLE FLASH, THEN IT IS ILLEGAL! So, is a ported barrel illegal if it reduces muzzle-flash? If the slighly dense people out there can not figure out what I am trying to do by my last posts, I will phrase it in yet another way. I can not find anything in the BATF green book that addresses a ported barrel,just attached flash-suppressors. So if the you wanted barrel compensation that looks like an A2, it looks like you can have a ported barrel with a reamed out flash suppressor, that really does not do anything. Another idea the BATF overlooked was a one piece barel- compensator that is machined out of the same piece of steel. Read your ATF regs they only talk about attached, not integral. I work in a machine shop and I love finding ways around stupid regulations.
Link Posted: 6/10/2001 6:34:49 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/10/2001 6:37:42 AM EDT by shaggy]
So, is a ported barrel illegal if it reduces muzzle-flash? If the slighly dense people out there can not figure out what I am trying to do by my last posts, I will phrase it in yet another way. I can not find anything in the BATF green book that addresses a ported barrel,just attached flash-suppressors. So if the you wanted barrel compensation that looks like an A2, it looks like you can have a ported barrel with a reamed out flash suppressor, that really does not do anything. Another idea the BATF overlooked was a one piece barel- compensator that is machined out of the same piece of steel. Read your ATF regs they only talk about attached, not integral.
View Quote
It doesn't matter if its attached or integral; if it reduced the flash signature, its a no-go on a post ban. Example - BATF has ruled some flash supressors as sound supressors because they have the insignificant effect of reducing the report by a mere 1-2dB. Same thing applies with respect to flash supressors; anything that supresses the flash in any measurable degree could be considered a flash supressor. Also, I'm not sure of what regs you're looking at,but 18 USC 921(a)(30)(B) does not only address threaded on flash supressors. An integral or permanently attached flash supressor would be covered also. 18 USC 921(a)(30)(B)(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor;
Link Posted: 6/10/2001 11:51:32 AM EDT
Originally Posted By shaggy:
So, is a ported barrel illegal if it reduces muzzle-flash? If the slighly dense people out there can not figure out what I am trying to do by my last posts, I will phrase it in yet another way. I can not find anything in the BATF green book that addresses a ported barrel,just attached flash-suppressors. So if the you wanted barrel compensation that looks like an A2, it looks like you can have a ported barrel with a reamed out flash suppressor, that really does not do anything. Another idea the BATF overlooked was a one piece barel- compensator that is machined out of the same piece of steel. Read your ATF regs they only talk about attached, not integral.
View Quote
It doesn't matter if its attached or integral; if it reduced the flash signature, its a no-go on a post ban. Example - BATF has ruled some flash supressors as sound supressors because they have the insignificant effect of reducing the report by a mere 1-2dB. Same thing applies with respect to flash supressors; anything that supresses the flash in any measurable degree could be considered a flash supressor. Also, I'm not sure of what regs you're looking at,but 18 USC 921(a)(30)(B) does not only address threaded on flash supressors. An integral or permanently attached flash supressor would be covered also. 18 USC 921(a)(30)(B)(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor;
View Quote
So what you are saying is that if you have a non-threaded ar-15 barrel that is ported then that is illegal? Sorry, but i disagree.
Link Posted: 6/10/2001 12:16:11 PM EDT
No, he is saying if it reduces muzzle flash it’s illegal no matter how it’s attached. A ported post ban barrel is legal, unless it reduces flash.
Link Posted: 6/10/2001 12:19:09 PM EDT
You are free to believe anything you want, but if the porting on the barrel functions to reduce the flash, even as a side effect of its primary muzzle brake function, then yes BATF could determine it is a flash hider and you are screwed.
Link Posted: 6/10/2001 12:20:06 PM EDT
Thanks RK - beat me to the punch.
Link Posted: 6/10/2001 12:25:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/10/2001 12:33:27 PM EDT by Righteous_Kill]
What difference does it make why he want to do it? What you are suggesting sounds legal, but to be sure, you’d want to make sure it does not reduce the flash signature. Honestly, I think your best bet would be a Wilson A2 style muzzle brake.
Link Posted: 6/10/2001 12:37:39 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Righteous Kill: What difference does it make why he want to do it? He obviously wants a muzzle brake that looks like and A2 flash suppressor. What you are suggesting sounds legal, but to be sure, you’d want to make sure it does not reduce the flash signature. Honestly, I think your best bet would be a Wilson A2 style muzzle brake.
View Quote
Thankyou righteous kill, what would you suggest to prove that it works as a compensator and not a as a flash suppressor? Taking pictures at night? And no I do not want to write the ATF for aproval, like the other knot-heads. I prefer to let grey remain grey and not force black or white decisions from the ATF.
Link Posted: 6/10/2001 12:50:07 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/10/2001 1:10:49 PM EDT
Lock&load - I didn't notice the difference, but I'll try to keep it in mind from now on. Locknload -
And no I do not want to write the ATF for aproval, like the other knot-heads. I prefer to let grey remain grey and not force black or white decisions from the ATF.
View Quote
Keeping your head in the sand won't save you. If BATF is going to rule your device an illegal flash hider, they won't have any problems enforcing it on you or anyone else whether they have or have not made a prior decision on it. Its been said before, but ignorance of the law is not a defense. Similarly, your ignorance in not knowing their position on a particular device is no defense.
Link Posted: 6/10/2001 1:28:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/10/2001 1:28:16 PM EDT by Righteous_Kill]
**This is not legal advice, just food for thought.** I have no idea as to what the ATF considers a legal definition of a flash suppressor, in fact, I don’t think they have a clue. Have you heard about the DSA/Tapco STG muzzle brake situation? The ATF gave them the OK, the changed it’s mind. The whole flash suppressor thing is a mystery to me. Muzzle flash can change with different ammunition, and other conditions. I suspect the scientific way would be to take pictures at night, or in a dark room. The trick would be taking the pictures at the moment the bullet leaves the barrel, you would need some sort of trip for the camera. This is to ensure the pictures are all taken at the same instance. Take pictures with the muzzle device on, and with out it. I would also try different factory ammo with the device on and off. Then compare. There might be a device that would measure the intensity of the flash. Some sort of light detector??? On a less technical approach. Go out and shoot it at night will some friends. See if the device adds muzzle flash, reduces flash or stays about the same. The real problem with using the A2 flash suppressor as a starting point, and I don’t know how the LEGP got around this. The A2 FH is considered a grenade luncher. I suppose you could put a bead of weld or a pin to keep the rife grenade from slipping over the barrel. Rk
Link Posted: 6/10/2001 1:32:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/10/2001 1:42:32 PM EDT by locknload]
Originally Posted By shaggy: Lock&load - I didn't notice the difference, but I'll try to keep it in mind from now on. Locknload -
And no I do not want to write the ATF for aproval, like the other knot-heads. I prefer to let grey remain grey and not force black or white decisions from the ATF.
View Quote
Keeping your head in the sand won't save you. If BATF is going to rule your device an illegal flash hider, they won't have any problems enforcing it on you or anyone else whether they have or have not made a prior decision on it. Its been said before, but ignorance of the law is not a defense. Similarly, your ignorance in not knowing their position on a particular device is no defense.
View Quote
OK sir, please print anything the Batf has on ported barrels and any cases that back up your statements that a ported barrel is a flash hider. I can not find anything like that. I would be glad read anything you have on this. Your statemnt that,"If the ATF rules your ported barrel is a flash-hider", strengthens my argument not to get them involved. "If" is completely different from haveing a ruleing in place. Until there is a ruling against something you should be alright unless you are the test-case. This is why i hate it when someone forces the ATF to make a ruling by writing them a letter, is so and so legal.
Link Posted: 6/10/2001 1:51:54 PM EDT
OK sir, please print anything the Batf has on ported barrels and any cases that back up your statements that a ported barrel is a flash hider. I can not find anything like that. I would be glad read anything you have on this.
View Quote
As far as I know BATF has said anything on flash hiders, but they don't have to. They can make that decision and determination anytime they damn well please. They can even make that determination after they've served you with a search warrant and collected all your stuff. Even if you get a letter saying its ok, they are free to change their minds at any time and prosecute you for it (and waving your letter around in the air won't help you). BATF and other federal agencies have the power to interpret and regulate under the law. They determine what constitutes a "flash hider", what parts constitute a "machinegun", what constitutes a "sporting purpose", etc., and unless their determination crosses the legal line of "arbitrary and capricious" the courts will uphold their determinations.
Link Posted: 6/10/2001 1:57:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/10/2001 2:00:59 PM EDT by shaggy]
Until there is a ruling against something you should be alright unless you are the test-case. This is why i hate it when someone forces the ATF to make a ruling by writing them a letter, is so and so legal.
View Quote
So you'd rather walk around in the dark and risk being the test case? Nifty. Just remember that you're lawyer is not going to have any easier time of defending you just because you didn't know. Test case or not, BATF won't have a difficult time. The point of writing to BATF is to ascertain their current position on an issue to try and avoid being the test case.
Link Posted: 6/10/2001 2:26:39 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/10/2001 2:24:49 PM EDT by rkbar15]
Originally Posted By Righteous Kill: The real problem with using the A2 flash suppressor as a starting point, and I don’t know how the LEGP got around this. The A2 FH is considered a grenade luncher. I suppose you could put a bead of weld or a pin to keep the rife grenade from slipping over the barrel. Rk
View Quote
The LEGP FFH is 23mm in diameter and is not a grenade launcher.
Link Posted: 6/10/2001 2:41:58 PM EDT
Originally Posted By shaggy:
Until there is a ruling against something you should be alright unless you are the test-case. This is why i hate it when someone forces the ATF to make a ruling by writing them a letter, is so and so legal.
View Quote
So you'd rather walk around in the dark and risk being the test case? Nifty. Just remember that you're lawyer is not going to have any easier time of defending you just because you didn't know. Test case or not, BATF won't have a difficult time. The point of writing to BATF is to ascertain their current position on an issue to try and avoid being the test case.
View Quote
What you do not seem to grasp is that they are government workers and do not generally go out looking for issues to rule on. But once someone brings something to their attention in any way that could be public knowledge, they have to act on it or risk looking like they are not doing their job. You can call it lurking in the dark if you want to, but i call it not giving the enemy ammunition to fire back at you. Oh, by the way ignorance can be an excuse if the jury or judge or prosecuter feels that way. There was a local case here that never made it to trial where a man shot & killed his aquaintence. "I didn't know it was loaded" and a good lawyer took care of that.
Link Posted: 6/10/2001 3:02:24 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/10/2001 3:08:00 PM EDT by shaggy]
What you do not seem to grasp is that they are government workers and do not generally go out looking for issues to rule on. But once someone brings something to their attention in any way that could be public knowledge, they have to act on it or risk looking like they are not doing their job. You can call it lurking in the dark if you want to, but i call it not giving the enemy ammunition to fire back at you.
View Quote
What YOU don't seem to understand is that you're not setting any law or precedent by getting a letter. BATF is free to change their minds at any time, even after giving someone a letter. It only gives you an insight into their current interpretation and enforcement of the statute. You're in no better position with a letter than without, except that with a letter you're less likely to get blindsided because you have some slight idea of what they're thinking. Whats the benefit to NOT knowing what's going on in the heads of those making the regs and rulings?
And Oh, by the way ignorance can be an excuse if the jury or judge or prosecuter feels that way. There was a local case here that never made it to trial where a man shot & killed his aquaintence. "I didn't know it was loaded" and a good lawyer took care of that.
View Quote
BZZZZZT! Wrong. Thats whats known in legal circles as a lack of the requisite [i]mens rea[/i]. The defendant knew the taking of another person's life was proscribed by law. Ignorance of the law is not a defense. The lack of an element of the offense is. Good lawyer? Maybe, but a first year law student would have figured that one out. I'm not a criminal attorney, but there's other reasons things like that don't make it to trial. Steve in VA would be the one to ask about that though. I think he's does crim def; I don't.
Link Posted: 6/10/2001 4:05:11 PM EDT
Shaggy you make a good point about knowing what is going on in their heads. I do not have a problem with companies or corporations getting thing in writing from the ATF for stuff that they plan to do in quantity. I do still have a problem with individuals who here someone talking on this board and right away start yelling "CALL THE ATF WE NEED A RULING ON THIS!!!!", you obviously have some legal background and I bow to your experience. As far as lurking in the dark, that has always been the best way of getting into your enemies heads. I would rather be silent and thought a fool,than open my mouth and remove all doubt. I may have broken my own rule here, but I myself never miss a chance for a good argument. Have a nice day Shaggy.
Link Posted: 6/10/2001 9:24:10 PM EDT
Clear as mud..... [url]http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/atf_letter51.txt[/url] DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND FIREARMS WASHINGTON, DC 20226 MAR 25 1999 903050:CHB 3311 Dear Mr. Bardwell: This refers to your letter of January 13, 1999, in which you ask about flash suppressors. As you are aware, the term flash suppressor appears in the definition of a semiautomatic assault weapon in section 921(a)(30) of Title 18, United States Code. The term flash suppressor is not specifically defined in the statute. A flash suppressor is a device which diminishes the visible flash which occurs at the muzzle of a firearm as the bullet leaves the barrel. While certain devices are exclusively designed as flash suppressors, many other muzzle attachments are designed to perform multiple functions such as a combination flash suppressor and grenade launcher, or a combination flash suppressor and muzzle break. Any such combination devices which function as a flash suppressor would qualify as a flash suppressor for purposes of section 921(a)(30)(B)(iv). A firearm silencer or muffler would also function as an effective flash suppressor; therefore, a semiautomatic rifle, such as an AR- 15, having a silencer or muffler and a pistol grip would qualify as a semiautomatic assault weapon as that term is defined in section 921(a)(30)(B). We trust that the foregoing has been responsive to your inquiry. If you have further questions concerning this matter, please contact us. Sincerely yours, Edward M. Owen, Jr. Chief, Firearms Technology Branch
Link Posted: 6/11/2001 2:44:33 PM EDT
This is a tough question. I don't think any of us really know(including the ATF). I kind of like the idea locknload has, so here is a suggestion get yourself or barrow a PRE-Ban and try it out. Problem solved. But im going to throw a log on the fire, the way the law reads it sounds to me is a suppressor(sound) would be a big NO-NO on a POST-ban because it would be a flash hider, making it an AW.
Link Posted: 6/11/2001 4:10:05 PM EDT
Zman - you're absolutely correct. BATF has issued a ruling wherein they determined that sound supressors also reduce flash, so therefore you can't have one on a postban.
Link Posted: 6/12/2001 7:26:55 AM EDT
The following is [size=3]NOT[/size=3] to flame or dis anyone: What a STUPID stupid thing we have to debate. Muzzle flash. I have NO idea why the muzzle flash of a rifle makes any difference to public safety. It's just stupid that we have to wonder if we can do something out of fear that it is illogically considered "illegal". Just chipping away at rights.
Link Posted: 6/12/2001 7:06:41 PM EDT
I have wondered the same thing, but more from a "do-ability" point of view than a legal one. Seems to me that ported barrels are not illegal. The pseudo-flash hider that is on the LEGP is not illegal...but porting a barrel that also has the LEGP FH IS illegal??? Classic case of two rights making a wrong I suppose - who else but BATF?
Link Posted: 6/12/2001 11:04:42 PM EDT
luvmyAR: Porting a barrel on a postban AR-15 is illegal, if the porting also reduces flash measurably.
Top Top