User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/20/2014 5:00:07 PM EDT
[#1]
The view I had of this (opinion) was that the govt. knew it was going to lose this case, and the outcome was going to essentially force them to document once and for all exactly what constitutes a suppressor, a machine gun, etc.
Being induced to do so would effectively remove their ability to subjectively legislate by fiat, and make it very possible to engineer around whatever plans/requirements they memorialize as definitions. You never see them blink like this unless they know (somehow) that they're going to lose. --Fargo007 |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2014 7:33:25 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The view I had of this (opinion) was that the govt. knew it was going to lose this case, and the outcome was going to essentially force them to document once and for all exactly what constitutes a suppressor, a machine gun, etc. Being induced to do so would effectively remove their ability to subjectively legislate by fiat, and make it very possible to engineer around whatever plans/requirements they memorialize as definitions. You never see them blink like this unless they know (somehow) that they're going to lose. --Fargo007 Yup. Shame sig cant pursue it anyway. That is why I stated I want a actual court decision. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2014 8:39:14 AM EDT
[#3]
Sig accepted the offer to "reconsider" the ruling. They did not have to, and could have pressed forward with the case.
But Sig is a business. They are not on a crusade and are only in it for economic reasons. If they are getting what they want, they have no more reason to continue paying lawyers. I think the time will come when there's someone on the other side of the DOJ with a very good case that won't accept a neutral "just go away and leave us to do it again to someone else" type settlement. And then we'll get a court decision. --Fargo007 |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2014 8:31:23 PM EDT
[#4]
I too would have liked to see a court ruling on this. But a court can always rule against you even if you think it should be a slam dunk. New Britain Connecticut case ring any bells? Where the Supreme Court ruled in direct contradiction of the language of the constitution?
Having the BATF reconsider isn't a bad second choice. SIG is a business and not a civil rights organization. They won't last long in business if they stay tied up in court. Especially when the gov't entity they are bumping heads with is the one that regulates and licenses their very business. Maybe now this will be a wake up call to BATF. Just maybe they will take a little better care in their official decisions. I won't hold my breath though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 1:14:37 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I too would have liked to see a court ruling on this. But a court can always rule against you even if you think it should be a slam dunk. New Britain Connecticut case ring any bells? Where the Supreme Court ruled in direct contradiction of the language of the constitution? Having the BATF reconsider isn't a bad second choice. SIG is a business and not a civil rights organization. They won't last long in business if they stay tied up in court. Especially when the gov't entity they are bumping heads with is the one that regulates and licenses their very business. Maybe now this will be a wake up call to BATF. Just maybe they will take a little better care in their official decisions. I won't hold my breath though. Without a court ruling they can still do whatever they want and at the minimum be a giant pain in the ass |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2014 2:36:34 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sig accepted the offer to "reconsider" the ruling. They did not have to, and could have pressed forward with the case. But Sig is a business. They are not on a crusade and are only in it for economic reasons. If they are getting what they want, they have no more reason to continue paying lawyers. I think the time will come when there's someone on the other side of the DOJ with a very good case that won't accept a neutral "just go away and leave us to do it again to someone else" type settlement. And then we'll get a court decision. --Fargo007 Due to the very nature of their business Sig, has a vested interest in our 2A rights. They unlike many other manufactures understand this clearly. This happens to be one of those battles where F-Troop painted themselves into a corner. I bet they thought they were pretty clever ruling adapters were suppressor parts if they couldn't serve another function. It wasn't a big deal with a break or hider that interfaced the suppressor but it sure as hell is now when the break is the whole damned baffle stack, lulz! The whole NFA is doublespeak and would probably end up being challenged or revised as a result of shenanigans like this. So they are probably just going to compromise. If Colt, Ruger, Smith and HK, FN and others took a similar stance things could get interesting. Unfortunately most of those companies are happy selling a few items to the public. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2014 2:38:15 AM EDT
[#7]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 3:40:47 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I like the part about "no market would exist for the device" if it were classified as a silencer. My take is that that's pretty much the only market that will exist. Who's going to buy one with the 9" "muzzle brake" and not put a can around it? Also, about reducing recoil and muzzle rise, I'm not sure a brake that big and open does much for recoil and muzzle rise, and even if it did, you wouldn't need 9" of brake. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Sig’s lawsuit says gun silencers are “subject to burdensome legal requirements” and by calling its muzzle brake a part for a silencer, the federal agency is subjecting the local company 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 it its lawsuit. Sig claims it designed the muzzle brake which “effectively reduces recoil and muzzle rise when a shot is discharged” and as such, is not subject to regulation under the federal Gun Control Act. “Accordingly, it will be highly marketable to consumers and will generate profit,” according to the suit. If classified as a silencer or muffler, “no market would exist for the device,” because consumers would not subject themselves to the “required burdens” associated with silencers, to buy a device that doesn’t perform as a silencer, Sig claims. I like the part about "no market would exist for the device" if it were classified as a silencer. My take is that that's pretty much the only market that will exist. Who's going to buy one with the 9" "muzzle brake" and not put a can around it? Also, about reducing recoil and muzzle rise, I'm not sure a brake that big and open does much for recoil and muzzle rise, and even if it did, you wouldn't need 9" of brake. It's called precedent. I would not be shocked at all if this is part of a plan (read: series of lawsuits) to at the very least fast track suppressors, if not just make them non-NFA items. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2014 10:03:16 PM EDT
[#9]
It is August 6th, any news?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2014 9:39:26 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It is August 6th, any news? Well? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2014 8:37:22 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It is August 6th, any news? Well? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2014 12:06:44 AM EDT
[#12]
I don't own any Sigs, and aside from the MPX being a cool firearm, I just want one b/c of the stick that Sig keeps poking at The Man.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/15/2014 9:00:59 AM EDT
[#13]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/15/2014 9:56:32 AM EDT
[#14]
Looks like it's back to court/law suit time. Then when the judge rules it not a suppressor, should be a done deal. The BATFE should of let this one go, now they will probably lose this, which will be a good thing for the firearms industry.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/15/2014 10:11:03 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Looks like it's back to court/law suit time. Then when the judge rules it not a suppressor, should be a done deal. The BATFE should of let this one go, now they will probably lose this, which will be a good thing for the firearms industry. I have a feeling the delay was to make sure a firearm unfriendly judge would be the one to take the case. /takes off tinfoil hat |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/15/2014 6:16:25 PM EDT
[#16]
I don't think that's so "tin foil" at all.
The other reason to try and fight this is that they see it as the loss of a millimeter of their regulatory authority. It's bureaucratic instinct that causes them to fight tirelessly to keep this penny even as it puts thousands of dollars at risk. "The strength of a bureaucracy is measured by its ability to resist giving ANYONE special treatment....." |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 8:36:09 AM EDT
[#17]
So the ATF is being cunts to Sig again because they're mad because they opened a loophole for new machine guns.
The ATF has been proven to be wrong on this case, just like they are on the new machine guns. The muzzle brake has function outside of being a silencer component, and therefore is not a silencer component, as it also acts as a muzzle brake. I can't wait for Sig to win this one, and maybe in their anger at the ATF will help to fund the upcoming suit against the ATF when they try and take back the tax stamps they issued, as well as the actual manufactured machine guns. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 9:52:47 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So the ATF is being cunts to Sig again because they're mad because they opened a loophole for new machine guns. The ATF has been proven to be wrong on this case, just like they are on the new machine guns. The muzzle brake has function outside of being a silencer component, and therefore is not a silencer component, as it also acts as a muzzle brake. I can't wait for Sig to win this one, and maybe in their anger at the ATF will help to fund the upcoming suit against the ATF when they try and take back the tax stamps they issued, as well as the actual manufactured machine guns. Do you have a link to the new MGs story? I hadn't heard about it. Thx |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 10:18:16 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do you have a link to the new MGs story? I hadn't heard about it. Thx http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1624460_ATF_approved_post_1986_machine_guns_for_NFA_trusts__legal_action_pending__updated_9_15_14.html |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 3:41:02 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Do you have a link to the new MGs story? I hadn't heard about it. Thx http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1624460_ATF_approved_post_1986_machine_guns_for_NFA_trusts__legal_action_pending__updated_9_15_14.html Thank you. Interesting situation. I avoid GD. Would have never seen that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 7:37:24 PM EDT
[#21]
If this goes against us it will be another big chunk of the little faith I have in our system gone.
There is just no way they should be able to call this thing a silencer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2014 9:56:34 PM EDT
[#22]
It does nothing to quiet the firearm WITHOUT adding a tube or other containment material which now makes it a silencer part. This has already been regulated for decades.
The BATF just does not like the looks of it, period and I hope it's challenged in court if they stick with their original opinion. Sig could mill / make the stack square which would make it harder to slide into a tube but I doubt that would satisfy the Fed's either. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2014 11:26:10 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It does nothing to quiet the firearm WITHOUT adding a tube or other containment material which now makes it a silencer part. This has already been regulated for decades. The BATF just does not like the looks of it, period and I hope it's challenged in court if they stick with their original opinion. Sig could mill / make the stack square which would make it harder to slide into a tube but I doubt that would satisfy the Fed's either. It has nothing to do with them not liking the look of it. They have long said that the baffles or core constitute a suppressor in itself. This is nothing new. The problem is that their ruling is bullshit and hopefully this case will be a good tool to force them to actually create and follow reasonable standards. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2014 11:32:15 PM EDT
[#24]
We all know what this is and what Sig's intended purpose is. If ATF has a reg regarding suppressor internals, which I think they do, Sig should have never tried to get this thing approved. Now just get the pistol out because the longer this takes I am slowly starting to lose interest.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2014 11:33:42 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We all know what this is and what Sig's intended purpose is. If ATF has a reg regarding suppressor internals, which I think they do, Sig should have never tried to get this thing approved. Now just get the pistol out because the longer this takes I am slowly starting to lose interest. yeah you are right we should never challenge unjust laws. Feel free to move on I am sure someone will be happy to take your place. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2014 11:37:03 PM EDT
[#26]
How is that an unjust law? Its a fricken suppressor/silencer baffle period. Lets just go rob a bank now because you think that is an unjust law too. Give me a break.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2014 11:41:20 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How is that an unjust law? Its a fricken suppressor/silencer baffle period. Lets just go rob a bank now because you think that is an unjust law too. Give me a break. Quote HistoryQuoted:
How is that an unjust law? Its a fricken suppressor/silencer baffle period. Lets just go rob a bank now because you think that is an unjust law too. Give me a break. Because, based on their fucking ruling, an item does not constitute a suppressor part if it has more than one intended use than just being part of a suppressor. The Sig brake acts as a fucking muzzle brake, as well as the internals to a suppressor. Not only that, but the NFA itself is fucking unconstitutional. ETA : 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. http://www.atf.gov/content/firearms/firearms-industry/guides/gun-control-act-definition-silencer |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2014 11:54:45 PM EDT
[#28]
Yea I agree on that as well. I think we are the only country that you can't by a suppressor over the counter.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2014 12:43:50 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How is that an unjust law? Its a fricken suppressor/silencer baffle period. Lets just go rob a bank now because you think that is an unjust law too. Give me a break. Well, so is the oss muzzle brake. Actually, any muzzle brake us also a silencer baffle if you put a tube over it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2014 1:35:24 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It has nothing to do with them not liking the look of it. They have long said that the baffles or core constitute a suppressor in itself. This is nothing new. The problem is that their ruling is bullshit and hopefully this case will be a good tool to force them to actually create and follow reasonable standards. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It does nothing to quiet the firearm WITHOUT adding a tube or other containment material which now makes it a silencer part. This has already been regulated for decades. The BATF just does not like the looks of it, period and I hope it's challenged in court if they stick with their original opinion. Sig could mill / make the stack square which would make it harder to slide into a tube but I doubt that would satisfy the Fed's either. It has nothing to do with them not liking the look of it. They have long said that the baffles or core constitute a suppressor in itself. This is nothing new. The problem is that their ruling is bullshit and hopefully this case will be a good tool to force them to actually create and follow reasonable standards. And fender washers & freeze plugs are "M" baffles , just missing the tube. Its an asinine opinion but irregardless of looks its does not quite the noise level at all. It really makes no different to a sound meter what a brake or baffle stack "looks" like. It either makes a gun quieter or it does not and I hope SIG fights it. Its as stupid a ruling / opinion that a single baffle is a suppressor as well as a fully functioning suppressor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2014 7:11:33 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because, based on their fucking ruling, an item does not constitute a suppressor part if it has more than one intended use than just being part of a suppressor. The Sig brake acts as a fucking muzzle brake, as well as the internals to a suppressor. Not only that, but the NFA itself is fucking unconstitutional. ETA : http://www.atf.gov/content/firearms/firearms-industry/guides/gun-control-act-definition-silencer Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
How is that an unjust law? Its a fricken suppressor/silencer baffle period. Lets just go rob a bank now because you think that is an unjust law too. Give me a break. Because, based on their fucking ruling, an item does not constitute a suppressor part if it has more than one intended use than just being part of a suppressor. The Sig brake acts as a fucking muzzle brake, as well as the internals to a suppressor. Not only that, but the NFA itself is fucking unconstitutional. ETA : 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. http://www.atf.gov/content/firearms/firearms-industry/guides/gun-control-act-definition-silencer This right here. ONLY. It's equivalent to any other muzzle brake in function and design. They've got scientific data that shows it actually AMPLIFIES the report of the firearm, which would put their scientifically demonstrable claim of it functioning as a brake on the table against the gubbaments scientific data of "we just don't like it." Lately they have a history of backing themselves into corners of cognitive dissonance that really play bad in a courtroom. A brake can't be a brake on one gun and a "suppressor" on another. If you are following the MG/Trust/Form1 issue it's the same thing. A "person" means one thing in this paragraph, but something completely different in another. I think they know they will lose this. They are fighting it not because they think they will win, but out of pure instinct to protect the bureaucracy they exist as. The true bureaucrat will put a million at risk to fight to keep a single penny. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2014 7:19:44 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How is that an unjust law? Its a fricken suppressor/silencer baffle period. Lets just go rob a bank now because you think that is an unjust law too. Give me a break. Are you for real 
This is the equivalent to them charging me for bank robbery because I own a ski mask, gun, and car. This is a muzzle brake. They should not be able to outlaw muzzle brakes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2014 7:20:19 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yea I agree on that as well. I think we are the only country that you can't by a suppressor over the counter. I am pretty sure silencers are illegal for the general populace most places. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2014 8:08:22 AM EDT
[#34]
Alaska - that's actually not the case. In european countries and Finland you indeed can buy them without anything CLOSE to the BS we have to go through.
They are so prolific that it's actually considered impolite NOT to use one when you shoot a rifle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2014 8:14:44 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How is that an unjust law? Its a fricken suppressor/silencer baffle period. Lets just go rob a bank now because you think that is an unjust law too. Give me a break. With some of the "friends" we have, it amazes me that we haven't lost our rights completely.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2014 8:17:10 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I am pretty sure silencers are illegal for the general populace most places. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Yea I agree on that as well. I think we are the only country that you can't by a suppressor over the counter. I am pretty sure silencers are illegal for the general populace most places. Firearms are more difficult to acquire in most places, silencers are generally over the counter though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2014 9:33:28 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How is that an unjust law? Its a fricken suppressor/silencer baffle period. Lets just go rob a bank now because you think that is an unjust law too. Give me a break. The problem is that it isn't just a baffle stack. It's fully functional as a brake without the tube like many other suppressor adapters. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2014 1:45:33 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Firearms are more difficult to acquire in most places, silencers are generally over the counter though. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yea I agree on that as well. I think we are the only country that you can't by a suppressor over the counter. I am pretty sure silencers are illegal for the general populace most places. Firearms are more difficult to acquire in most places, silencers are generally over the counter though. I want a list because apparently my definition of most places must be different. If we made a list of all countries are you saying more than not allow over the counter sales??? I know that Europe has several places that operate that way but was not under the impression that it was common. The other question I have if it is the case is does it only apply to registered firearms owners which was how I assumed it was in Europe?? If so that is still a shitty deal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2014 6:19:10 PM EDT
[#39]
I think it was understood that by "most places" you meant "most places where people own firearms."
And by and large, outside North America, that's Europe and Scandinavia. It wouldn't make sense to consider suppressor ownership unless there's a firearm to use it with. But who knows. I know salespeople that are so smooth they can sell ice to eskimos. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2014 10:11:15 PM EDT
[#40]
I don't think silencers being available "over the counter" in Europe is anywhere near as prevalent as people like to think.
I lived and shot in Germany for 9 years. At both European and US military gun clubs. Never once did I see anyone using a silencer. Same goes for the gun ranges I shot at in Belgium and Switzerland. There was a portion on the German gun registration paperwork about if it is equipped with a silencer, but just to be able to own a firearm in the first place in Germany takes at least as much effort as it takes to get NFA items in the US if not more so. It took me a year and a half to get my German Waffenbesitzkarte approved. I've been told it's even more difficult now than when I did it. To the point that most Germans don't even consider firearms ownership. My Swiss and Belgian friends tell me that silencers are allowed in those countries but that it takes extra paperwork and government approval to get them. At one time they were more "over the counter" but not for several years in those countries. There are probably some countries where they are easily available and possibly common among firearms owners, but these countries are the exception not the rule. In General, most European countries make firearms ownership as difficult to attain as the NFA process here in the US. So to say silencers are common or easily obtained in "most" European countries is misinformed at best. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2014 11:18:41 PM EDT
[#41]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2014 12:04:20 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryWhat's your point??? They have been upfront about their intentions since day one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2014 7:30:56 AM EDT
[#43]
I'm sure they will try that, but the legal definition doesn't care.
An additional function outside suppressor usage is what separates it legally from the definition of a "suppressor." |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2014 8:32:18 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryWhat difference does their intention make? The law specifically states: 18 U.S.C., § 921(A)(24) 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. Notice the words "ONLY FOR SUCH USE". The fact of the matter is, that this is not intended ONLY FOR SUCH USE. It also functions as a muzzle break, and Sig has scientific data to back that up. When used in that role, it effectively makes the firearm louder, not quieter. Aside from the obvious visual queues, there is no functional difference between this, and a permanently attached AAC Brakeout. Why is one permitted and one not? Because the ATF is arbitrary in creating their definitions, and arbitrary in enforcing them. A representative government of laws cannot exist on arbitrary decisions. They must be decisions of law. And hopefully this will force them into that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2014 10:52:05 AM EDT
[#45]
Just adding that it ALSO functions as an extension to bring the barrel length up to a legal 16".
So there's two things it does that have no relation to being a suppressor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2014 10:58:52 AM EDT
[#46]
A sound meter proves its NOT a suppressor.
Now if someone modifies it then it becomes something different and illegal without prior approval. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2014 11:09:50 AM EDT
[#47]
I wish SIG would pursue this all the way.
But they are a business and will make the decision best for their business. Quote HistoryQuoted:
How is that an unjust law? Its a fricken suppressor/silencer baffle period. Says who? Some snaggle toothed baboon at the BATFE? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2014 11:13:07 AM EDT
[#48]
DELETED BY ME !!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2014 1:29:50 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What's your point??? They have been upfront about their intentions since day one. Quote HistoryQuoted:
What's your point??? They have been upfront about their intentions since day one. My point is you can't buy/posess suppressor parts individually and this is a baffle stack. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2014 1:31:42 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I wish SIG would pursue this all the way. But they are a business and will make the decision best for their business. Says who? Some snaggle toothed baboon at the BATFE?
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I wish SIG would pursue this all the way. But they are a business and will make the decision best for their business. Quoted:
How is that an unjust law? Its a fricken suppressor/silencer baffle period. Says who? Some snaggle toothed baboon at the BATFE?
Says SIG. Look at the link in the post above this one. |
|
|
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.
