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
Posted: 5/1/2001 11:00:48 AM EDT
This little tale will make you more angry than afraid. This is directly from a convo with Jeff from DSA. Apparently, DSA got verbal approval from the "Owens" staff at ATF Technology Branch, prior to beginning production of the STG 58A kit rifles. The brake was 23mm in diameter, a closed in front, and pairs of ports at 90 degree intervals around the nose of the brake. A muzzle brake by all accounts, having none of the characteristics of a flash hider or grenade launcher. Apparently, the new head of Technology branch likes to compare apples to oranges. They have been comparing the flash signatures of the new DSA brake with the flash signature of the Belgian multi function device (22mm, 2" long, triplets of 40degree slanted forward holes at 90 degree intervals). The MFD was given a flash reduction value of FIVE and the new DSA brake when compared to it was given a value of 2. Apparently, it was ignored that the STG58 came with a four-tine flash hider that surpasses the vaunted "vortex" in it's flash suppression capability. So now the ATF says that the new brake "may" reduce flash enough to be considered a "flash hider". DSA is actively seeking independant, fair analysis of the device and it may go in DSAs favor. Perhaps not. Rather than put DSA's customers in a bad position regarding compliance with the 94 "Ugly gun ban", DSA recalled the kit guns. I have recommended that DSA aquire independant proof, comparing their brake with the original STG 58 flash hider and then suing the shit out of the ATF Technology Branch for "Abitrary and Conflicting" official approvals and Abuse of Authority. Interestingly enough, ATF does not have the authority to deem any device an "approved brake" or "non-approved flash hider" except in individual cases involving prosecutions. There has been ZERO prosecutions involving "interpretation" of brakes/hiders. There have been ZERO convictions involving same. DSA is doing the right thing by not putting customers in jeopardy. I have only installed five of these brakes and on all of the rifles the flash was significant and blinding. Want to help? Call the ATF Technology branch. Complain about arbitrary "interpretations" based on faulty methodology. Call your Congressdork and complain that we gunowners are tired of being jerked around by faceless, unaccountable bureauRats who have the ridiculous power to graciously allow us to be "compliant" one month and "felons" the next. Better yet, demand a repeal of the 94 gun ban and the "characteristic" sections of that. The whole mess (and indeed, much of what the 103rd Commie Congress passed and was eagerly signed by Komrade Klinton) has proven to be "unconstitutionally vague". D. Feel free to repost everywhere.
Link Posted: 5/1/2001 11:18:54 AM EDT
Hey, Derek - Its garandman, your old friend. thanks for the good heads-up on the DSA brake. I'm REALLY tempted to tell ATF to go %&^# themselves. Its this type of arbitrariness that is the result of Herr Klinton's rule, er, I mean reign, er, well, presidency. while it is mostly an annoyance right now, what really chaps my hide is how it puts a seller like yourself in a constant state of jeopardy as to what you sold YESTERDAY. You can NEVER know if your are OK if they keep moving the goal posts. Further, its puts a financial burden on you sellers / manufacturers of having to go back and fix what was legal yesterday. I really hate them fricks. hang in there. We buyers will continue to buy you all.
Link Posted: 5/1/2001 11:38:42 AM EDT
When the FS Vs MB issue finally goes to trial someday it is going to be really easy to settle. ATF is going to shoot the rifle with no MB and measure the amount of flash. They will then attach the MB and measure the amount of flash. If there is any reduction in flash, however so slight, its a flash suppressor.
Link Posted: 5/1/2001 11:56:33 AM EDT
As far as I'm concerned, the whole thing needs to be taken to Bardwell, and used as basis to file a suit against the ATF, and to implore the courts to deem the "flash hider" provision of the '94 ugly gun ban as "Unconstitutionally vague" This from the ATF website: Technical excellence, customer satisfaction, and continuous improvement have been the hallmarks of the ATF laboratories since 1886. We will continue to work hard to build upon this success as we enter our third century of public service. Michael W. Ethridge Director, Laboratory Services Email:- ATFLabs@atfhq.atf.treas.gov You know what to do. D.
Link Posted: 5/1/2001 12:00:10 PM EDT
Thanks for the info and link. up it goes btt
Link Posted: 5/1/2001 1:33:58 PM EDT
.
Link Posted: 5/2/2001 12:39:16 PM EDT
Hopefully you've gotten those emails out. D.
Link Posted: 5/2/2001 12:47:31 PM EDT
to date - I've sent ATF a letter registering my objection. I've e-mailed my House of Reps Congresscritter, enlisitng his help, requiring that he contact me. I've e-mailed BOTH my Senators, enlisitng their help, requiring that they contact me. I've sent this "scoop" to a local semi-conservative, unbiased newspaper that I used to write for a little. I STRONGLY suspect they'll dig this scoop and put it in their paper (which also has an e-edition. that's all i could think to do so far. I'm open for other suggestions, cuz this one has got me PISSED.
Top Top