Posted: 3/31/2010 12:59:02 PM EDT
|
AAC has put out a new muzzle brake based on their Blackout FH. With the side cut baffles, there's no way that this thing suppresses flash any more than a fsc556, but it looks cool, and is supposed to reduce the "blast" that's all too common with a Miculek type of brake. Any thoughts or opinions on why this may or may not be a good idea?
http://www.advanced-armament.com/product.aspx?pid=186 |
|
Quoted:
The threads at the base look like they make it capable of accepting a silencer which would be a no-go. http://www.advanced-armament.com/repository/product/brakeout-main.jpg The law reads it can't take a flash hider. Nothing at all about silencers, so it's legal. |
|
Very similar to the Rainier Arms XTC, except the XTC doesn't have threads for a suppressor
http://www.rainierarms.com/?page=shop/detail&product_id=1684 
|
One of these days NY will make a ruling and a lot of people are gonna need a hacksaw. 
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
The threads at the base look like they make it capable of accepting a silencer which would be a no-go. http://www.advanced-armament.com/repository/product/brakeout-main.jpg The law reads it can't take a flash hider. Nothing at all about silencers, so it's legal. Sound suppressors are inherently flash suppressing. Also, even if you pin that on, you still have a threaded barrel, so you're right back where you started. |
|
Quoted:
I also have always wondered about this: http://www.rainierarms.com/img/shop/product/731cf308c04f0eaf91567dbf3ff7b839.jpg POF calls its a FH, but it clearly has a closed front. Looks like a brake/compensator to me. thats essentially a AK74 brake, GTG in my opinion. |
|
The Ranier is GTG, the POF is also GTG. As stated the PL says cannot be threaded to accept a flash suppressor, in my estimation a FH is not a suppressor nor is a suppressor a FH by definition. I will check but my inclination is OK stateside but some asshat counties......maybe they will make one with the threads milled off?
22. "Assault weapon" means (a) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the following characteristics: (i) a folding or telescoping stock; (ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; (iii) a bayonet mount; (iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; (v) a grenade launcher Nothing about rifle grenades |
|
So they mean launchers, like the 203 only? I thought I ran across some brakes that made a specific point of saying they would not accept a rifle fired grenade to comply with the AWB in NY with that line of the law highlighted. Then again, I'm getting old, and brain fried, not a lawyer, or State Trooper Firearms expert, so I'll bow to the expert witness. Can't get much closer than 726 to the horses mouth!  |
|
Quoted:
The Ranier is GTG, the POF is also GTG. As stated the PL says cannot be threaded to accept a flash suppressor, in my estimation a FH is not a suppressor nor is a suppressor a FH by definition. I will check but my inclination is OK stateside but some asshat counties......maybe they will make one with the threads milled off? 22. "Assault weapon" means (a) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the following characteristics: (i) a folding or telescoping stock; (ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; (iii) a bayonet mount; (iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; (v) a grenade launcher Nothing about rifle grenades if the threads on the outside of the brake were an issue, i have a cheap solution... Dremel toolllllllllllllllll 
I love my dremel
|
|
Quoted:
So they mean launchers, like the 203 only? I thought I ran across some brakes that made a specific point of saying they would not accept a rifle fired grenade to comply with the AWB in NY with that line of the law highlighted.
Then again, I'm getting old, and brain fried, not a lawyer, or State Trooper Firearms expert, so I'll bow to the expert witness. Can't get much closer than 726 to the horses mouth!
I know that the ATF at one point considered the 22mm muzzle device- like the combo decice on a G3 or FAL a grenade launcher and thus it was a feature that prohibited importation because of the '68 "sporting purposes " BS. Later in the Federal AW ban I thought they made another similiar determination. In any case that is Federal and you could always add to the diameter to prevent the use of rifle grenades too a "dab" of weld or something similar. FWIW: Grenade launcher. Grenade launchers are incorporated in the majority of military firearms as
http://www.atf.gov/publications/download/treas/treas-study-on-sporting-suitability-of-modified-semiautomatic-assault-rifles.pdf
a device to facilitate the launching of explosive grenades. Such launchers are generally of two types. The first type is a flash suppressor designed to function as a grenade launcher. The second type attaches to the barrel of the rifle by either screws or clamps. No traditional sporting application could be identified for a grenade launcher... ...A model BM59 Beretta, 7.62 mm, NATO Caliber Sporter Version Rifle was presented to the panel and their advice sought as to their suitability for sporting purposes. It was the consensus that these rifles do have a particular use in target shooting and hunting. Accordingly, it was recommended that importation of this rifle together with the SIG-AMT 7.62mm NATO Caliber Sporting Rifle and the Cetme 7.62mm NATO Caliber Sporting Rifle be authorized for importation. Importation, however, should include the restriction that these weapons must not possess combination flash suppressors/grenade adaptors with outside diameters greater than 20mm (.22 mm is the universal grade adaptor size). |
|
Quoted: Quoted: So they mean launchers, like the 203 only? I thought I ran across some brakes that made a specific point of saying they would not accept a rifle fired grenade to comply with the AWB in NY with that line of the law highlighted. Then again, I'm getting old, and brain fried, not a lawyer, or State Trooper Firearms expert, so I'll bow to the expert witness. Can't get much closer than 726 to the horses mouth! I know that the ATF at one point considered the 22mm muzzle device- like the combo decice on a G3 or FAL a grenade launcher and thus it was a feature that prohibited importation because of the '68 "sporting purposes " BS. Later in the Federal AW ban I thought they made another similiar determination. In any case that is Federal and you could always add to the diameter to prevent the use of rifle grenades too a "dab" of weld or something similar. FWIW: Grenade launcher. Grenade launchers are incorporated in the majority of military firearms as http://www.atf.gov/publications/download/treas/treas-study-on-sporting-suitability-of-modified-semiautomatic-assault-rifles.pdfa device to facilitate the launching of explosive grenades. Such launchers are generally of two types. The first type is a flash suppressor designed to function as a grenade launcher. The second type attaches to the barrel of the rifle by either screws or clamps. No traditional sporting application could be identified for a grenade launcher... ...A model BM59 Beretta, 7.62 mm, NATO Caliber Sporter Version Rifle was presented to the panel and their advice sought as to their suitability for sporting purposes. It was the consensus that these rifles do have a particular use in target shooting and hunting. Accordingly, it was recommended that importation of this rifle together with the SIG-AMT 7.62mm NATO Caliber Sporting Rifle and the Cetme 7.62mm NATO Caliber Sporting Rifle be authorized for importation. Importation, however, should include the restriction that these weapons must not possess combination flash suppressors/grenade adaptors with outside diameters greater than 20mm (.22 mm is the universal grade adaptor size). You can make it sporting as long as you include a rifle grenade course as part of an IDPA/IPSC match. |
|
Quoted:
Clearly the relationship balance is completely wrong where gun owners here are apparently in fear of being persecuted. I didn't know that trying to follow the law was wrong.  Why would anyone want to risk an expensive legal battle and/or possible prison time over a stupid muzzle device? It's not about fear; it's about cost/benefit.
For the same price, I can buy a FSC556 and sleep like a baby. |
|
Quoted: I didn't know that trying to follow the law was wrong. Why would anyone want to risk an expensive legal battle and/or possible prison time over a stupid muzzle device? It's not about fear; it's about cost/benefit.For the same price, I can buy a FSC556 and sleep like a baby. This. |
|
This is apparently like explaining impressionist paintings to Ray Charles...
THE EXACT LETTER OF THE LAW says no FLASH HIDER or threads which accept a FLASH HIDER specifically. That means FLASH HIDER and ONLY FLASH HIDER, not silencer, rubber ducky, extra chewing gum, or whatever they want to say fits on threads other than that. Since there is no FLASH HIDER which is designed or intended to go on these threads, it's LEGAL. That's black and white clear as day LEGAL. They can't make up the law as they go along or read into it what isn't there. What is apparent is that you fear they can make up whatever they want as they go along and railroad you upon a whim. That is by definition wrong on their part and is at very least a civil tort and at most a severe violation of federal law ON THEM. Apparently you're not used to standing up for yourselves here. For God's sake get off your damned knees and stop bending over for them. If you honestly believe this is a real problem then start setting up a fund and pooling resources to defend and counterattack on behalf of anyone who gets subjected to this kind of harassment and intimidation––I shouldn't have to tell you this but apparently I do. There already exists for this explicit purpose the Second Amendment Foundation and the Calguns Foundation, and IIRC the NRA does this sort of stuff too from time to time. |
|
Quoted:
This is apparently like explaining impressionist paintings to Ray Charles... THE EXACT LETTER OF THE LAW says no FLASH HIDER or threads which accept a FLASH HIDER specifically. Since there is no FLASH HIDER which is designed or intended to go on these threads, it's LEGAL. That's black and white clear as day LEGAL. They can't make up the law as they go along or read into it what isn't there. What is apparent is that you fear they can make up whatever they want as they go along and railroad you upon a whim. That is by definition wrong on their part and is at very least a civil tort and at most a severe violation of federal law ON THEM. Apparently you're not used to standing up for yourselves here. For God's sake get off your damned knees and stop bending over for them. If you honestly believe this is a real problem then start setting up a fund and pooling resources to defend and counterattack on behalf of anyone who gets subjected to this kind of harassment and intimidation––I shouldn't have to tell you this but apparently I do. There already exists for this explicit purpose the Second Amendment Foundation and the Calguns Foundation, and IIRC the NRA does this sort of stuff too from time to time. Buzz... wrong! You will still get busted for a threaded barrel. Just because there isn't a "flash suppressor" that fits those threads today doesn't mean there won't be one on the market tomorrow. Or the prosecutor will have a machine shop fabricate one prior to trial. When your gun becomes "Exhibit A", "Exhibit B" will be some kind of device that fits those threads and can suppress flash (a simple cone or a sound suppressor). |
|
If there is such a prosecutor, and/or police inclined to try this kind of crap, THROW THEM OUT OF TOWN. NOW. You should have done so decades ago. Also, making up evidence post facto and/or for the sole purpose of legal entrapment is all kinds of illegal on their part––if they do so, PUT THEIR ASS IN JAIL. Not to mention they should be there anyway for abuse of process.
Geez, you people would surrender a tank battalion to a pair of 9 year old girls with twigs in their hands. How in the hell do you ever put a football team on the field or hockey team on the ice with this kind of French style cowardice? This is the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Act like it! |
|
Quoted:
If there is such a prosecutor, and/or police inclined to try this kind of crap, THROW THEM OUT OF TOWN. NOW. You should have done so decades ago. Also, making up evidence post facto and/or for the sole purpose of legal entrapment is all kinds of illegal on their part––if they do so, PUT THEIR ASS IN JAIL. Not to mention they should be there anyway for abuse of process. Geez, you people would surrender a tank battalion to a pair of 9 year old girls with twigs in their hands. How in the hell do you ever put a football team on the field or hockey team on the ice with this kind of French style cowardice? This is the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Act like it! There's a difference between following legal precedent and "surrendering to 9 year old girls". The NY law mirrors the expired Federal law, and the Federal law relied on the BATF ruling whether or not a particular muzzle device was "flash suppressing". It doesn't matter if the manufacturer calls it a brake, flash hider, silencer, sound suppressor, or rubber ducky... if it suppresses flash, it's a flash suppressor. If the prosecutor brings in a BATF agent as an expert witness and they show that a muzzle device that fits your threads does in fact suppress flash, you are fucked. Of course, you're still free to make up your own interpretation of the law and end up like Muffin... |
|
The ATF issues specific rulings on whether a device model is a flash suppressor or not, they don't show up and point to something on the spot and say it is. They do not have dual definitions for something: if a silencer is a silencer, and they have very strict definitions for that, it is not a flash hider/flash suppressor also. It is either one or other. Also if you read the law verbatim it says threaded to accommodate a FLASH hider/FLASH suppressor, and an operative word is DESIGNED. NOT "threaded to accept anything whatsoever" and NOT "threaded to accept whatever might be available in the future." Laws are words and words have meaning. Holding the law to its own literal meaning and demanding adherence to it is not reinterpreting the law, and it certainly isn't ignoring it. Muffin ignored the law.
The equally large issue which apparently has not attempted to be solved is the presence and willingness of people of authority wanting to make this a problem in the first place. There is a big problem that you have someone who would even try to arrest you purely for what's on the end of your muzzle and others above them who would tell them to do so. Why have you not removed them? Or at very least, as previously suggested, have a legal network to make yourself at least as powerful in the court as they are. |
Join the Community
Your next conversation starts here.
Create your free account to join discussions, share your experience, save topics, and connect with the AR15.COM community.
- Join discussions
- Follow topics and replies
- Connect with fellow enthusiasts
Already a member? Sign in
Stay informed by subscribing to our Newsletter