This is the one part of the law that kills me, a pinned stock I can deal with, but the gun seems incomplete without a hider.

I refuse to pin a muzzle break for estetics alone, although the Troy Medivel muzzle break is pretty cool looking and is designed to break glass.

What are your thoughts?

The law is the law.

I don't like the looks of a "bare" muzzle either but there are a lot of cool brakes out there today. They make a birdcage example that look almost identical the the USGI birdcage flashider. I can live with that.

http://www.dpmsinc.com/Branson-Compensator_p_601.html

I have one of these on my ACR, it's a comp that looks exactly like an A2 flash hider. Only way you can tell it's not is the closed front.

Where did you guys have your breaks pinned?  Does anyone do them right in NJ?

If you didn't like the sound or for wahteaver reason or didn't want the break after it is installed, can you have it removed?  Or is your barrel pretty much permanently changed now?

The Branson brake looks good.  

I agree, I hate the look of a bare pencil barrel with nothing at the end.

Hemcon9, Sean. right here on AR15. Not an artist in training but just an artist.

Maxwell

Agreed!!

As stated, the laws is the laws.  Honestly, the telescoping stock rule bothers me far more than the flash hider rule.  Think about it, you can have an M4 telescoping stock on your rifle as long as it's pinned in one location.  It doesn't matter what location on the tube that you pin it, it doesn't matter if it's all the way in or all the way out, just that it can't move once it's on the rifle.  So basically what the means is, you can't have a stock that makes your rifle more comfortable to shoot in different situations or from different positions.  IMO It makes far less sense in terms of law and public safety, than any of the other "assault rifle" rules.  There is absolutely no argument one could make, that lends to defending the idea that a telescoping stock makes a rifle of any sort, more of a concern for public safety.  

I don't really care about flash hiders.  My problem with that part of the feature rule is that I'm a tinkerer and enjoy changing things up from time to time.  I'd rather use a compensator anyway as a comp is more effective for me in my uses than a flash hider.  I can't remember the last time I was out shooting my personally owned rifle at night and had a high concern for giving away my position with muzzle flash.  I can however, think of a million times when I wished I could adjust my stock to fit a position more comfortably.

+1 for Hemcon9

Been going to him for years. Done a few transfers, brake pins, stock fixes and muzzle threads for me. Top notch

I have one on my plane jane 20" AR. I really wish they made an extended version that can make a 14.5 inch barrel legal with it perm attached. Its a few 8th too short. Bummer

That's the misconception the Flash-Hidre rule was based on..the Hider doesnt "Conceal" your muzzle flash from other people, it Diffuses iit from the SHOOTERS POV as to not mess up the Shooter's night vision as badly.  The morons in the legislature took the Term to mean something it wasnt.

In most tactical environments a flash hiders primary function is to reduce muzzle signature.  Shooters perception may be a secondary benefit, but from my experience, POV night vision is rarely affected unless there's sustained, uncontrolled bursts or flashes of extreme brightness (IE: flashbangs).  I've done plenty of work and training at night or in low light scenarios and while I can see that someone would think night vision manipulation is a problem, it's not a primary concern in most cases.  Like I said, I can see where that would be the purpose in a long sustained fighting situation, but what I was referring to was the use of them here in non military environments.

There was no confusion in the legislature, quite the contrary they could care less what the items do in real life.   When these rules were applied to the definition of an assault rifle.  They simply drew an inference on what items make a gun more or less militarized.  There was no worry that a muzzle device would make it easier or harder for a criminal to conceal their location, they simply needed a definition and the items in the list "felt good" in the anti side to reduce the availability of military type weapons.

DPMS lists their a2 flash hider as a "compensator".

but does the ATF say the same?



 

I dont know.

Yeah its what the ATF says. For example PWS labels their FSC556 as a compensating Flash Hider but there is a letter from the ATF saying its NOT a flash hider. Hence why alot of us here have one on a rifle.

There is no more federal awb in effected  so the atf no longer needs to rule on what constitutes a flash hider or brake or what have you. It is now all up to the person that is prosecuting your court case.

The safest way to determine whether a muzzle device that has no ATF designation will be legal in NJ (short of calling the NJSP and asking them point blank) is to look at the exit end of it.  If the exit hole is the same bore as the exit hole on the barrel, it's likely going to be considered a brake or a comp.  If the exit hole is larger than the exit hole on the barrel, or completely open then it COULD and probably will be considered a flash hider.  Like it, hate it, disagree with it or not; that's the way I've been advised and that’s the way I judge my own muzzle devices.

Take a look at the EGW Gen 2 brake. Works well, not too loud, helps with muzzle rise and other than straight on it looks like an A2 hider. Very good quality. Get it installed and pinned pinned right and be happy i have had three and think they are a great choice.