Armory Sponsor
Posted: 1/24/2013 5:34:05 PM EDT
| Your thoughts, gentlemen and ladies? Because even with the hefty price tag, I think a stamp may be in my future. |
| i was looking at this recently and found myself getting really pissed of about politics and laws. There is no logical reason at all that we are able to go buy the SBR version or suppressed version but not the full auto version. Think about it. before 1986 it would have been all the same. Walk in to a class 3 dealer and choose between any version you want. |
| I handled them at SHOT last week. Very nice with some features even the MP5s don't have which is my standard on these kinds of things. I don't know if it will stand the test of time like the MP5 and subguns are kind of out of the style right now, but I would definitely buy one if I got the chance. |
|
Quoted:
I handled them at SHOT last week. Very nice with some features even the MP5s don't have which is my standard on these kinds of things. I don't know if it will stand the test of time like the MP5 and subguns are kind of out of the style right now, but I would definitely buy one if I got the chance. same here. |
My 2 reservations about the MPX are that first of all, the suppressor core (let's not kid ourselves, that's what it IS) appears to be made out of cast aluminum in the photos.  Second, I have doubts that the ATF will let a suppressor core be re-classified as a "compensator." Haven't they already decided that baffles and cores are considered "regulated suppressor parts" and that one cannot own them or have spares without a corresponding suppressor & stamp? Cool concept, but the build approach to the suppressor core is an odd choice, and I think SIG is trying to get the honey without disrupting any bees. Good luck! |
|
Quoted:
My 2 reservations about the MPX are that first of all, the suppressor core (let's not kid ourselves, that's what it IS) appears to be made out of cast aluminum in the photos.
Second, I have doubts that the ATF will let a suppressor core be re-classified as a "compensator." Haven't they already decided that baffles and cores are considered "regulated suppressor parts" and that one cannot own them or have spares without a corresponding suppressor & stamp? Cool concept, but the build approach to the suppressor core is an odd choice, and I think SIG is trying to get the honey without disrupting any bees. Good luck! Any compensator out there can be wrapped in steel and work as a suppressor, even if it doesn't work that great depending on the size. The sig is just bigger and LOOKS like a core. |
|
Quoted:
My 2 reservations about the MPX are that first of all, the suppressor core (let's not kid ourselves, that's what it IS) appears to be made out of cast aluminum in the photos.
Second, I have doubts that the ATF will let a suppressor core be re-classified as a "compensator." Haven't they already decided that baffles and cores are considered "regulated suppressor parts" and that one cannot own them or have spares without a corresponding suppressor & stamp? Cool concept, but the build approach to the suppressor core is an odd choice, and I think SIG is trying to get the honey without disrupting any bees. Good luck! This is probably a prototype. I highly doubt they can get that through when it's obviously meant to be a suppressor core, with threading at the front for a tube + and end cap. If it is cast, it won't hold up well anyway, but again, this is a proto for a show. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Any compensator out there can be wrapped in steel and work as a suppressor, even if it doesn't work that great depending on the size. The sig is just bigger and LOOKS like a core. Don't kid yourself. What's to stop ATF from considering my SF MB556K muzzle brake as silencer baffles then? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Any compensator out there can be wrapped in steel and work as a suppressor, even if it doesn't work that great depending on the size. The sig is just bigger and LOOKS like a core. Don't kid yourself. What's to stop ATF from considering my SF MB556K muzzle brake as silencer baffles then? Nothing. Write FTB a letter and ask them. I am sure they will be happy to accommodate you. 
Do you see a company like Liberty Suppressors getting away with selling their Mystic core as muzzle brakes? A suppressor core is a suppressor core. Arguing any muzzle brake can be a suppressor core is not a winning strategy. It is far more likely to result in the decision all muzzle brakes are suppressors then it is to result in the some suppressor parts are just muzzle brakes decision. 
|
|
Quoted: Cast baffles are nothing new, though I don't know of a cast monocore. I'm sure Sig asked the ATF for permission before they put this out so I'm not worried about it. Companies have made cast lowers too, and even though its nothing new, it's still a piss poor way to make a lower. A suppressor should be built as strong as possible, given the end user is married to it. When it comes to this being already approved, I have read conflicting reports on it. I'll believe it when they're on dealer shelves. Showing a proto at a trade show doesn't mean it has ATF's blessing. It just means they're fishing for feedback. I've already stated mine.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Any compensator out there can be wrapped in steel and work as a suppressor, even if it doesn't work that great depending on the size. The sig is just bigger and LOOKS like a core. Don't kid yourself. What's to stop ATF from considering my SF MB556K muzzle brake as silencer baffles then? Nothing. Write FTB a letter and ask them. I am sure they will be happy to accommodate you.
Do you see a company like Liberty Suppressors getting away with selling their Mystic core as muzzle brakes? A suppressor core is a suppressor core. Arguing any muzzle brake can be a suppressor core is not a winning strategy. It is far more likely to result in the decision all muzzle brakes are suppressors then it is to result in the some suppressor parts are just muzzle brakes decision. The point that I'm getting at though is there is absolutely no difference between the two. The function only changes when it has a registered tube around it. Would a brake with a stubby tube around it make for a shitty silencer? Sure, but there is nothing to differentiate it from any of the takedown cans that exist today that you can pull the core out of. The ATF deciding that all muzzle brakes are suppressor cores isn't going to work out too well in court I'd imagine. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Any compensator out there can be wrapped in steel and work as a suppressor, even if it doesn't work that great depending on the size. The sig is just bigger and LOOKS like a core. Don't kid yourself. What's to stop ATF from considering my SF MB556K muzzle brake as silencer baffles then? Nothing. Write FTB a letter and ask them. I am sure they will be happy to accommodate you.
Do you see a company like Liberty Suppressors getting away with selling their Mystic core as muzzle brakes? A suppressor core is a suppressor core. Arguing any muzzle brake can be a suppressor core is not a winning strategy. It is far more likely to result in the decision all muzzle brakes are suppressors then it is to result in the some suppressor parts are just muzzle brakes decision. The point that I'm getting at though is there is absolutely no difference between the two. The function only changes when it has a registered tube around it. Would a brake with a stubby tube around it make for a shitty silencer? Sure, but there is nothing to differentiate it from any of the takedown cans that exist today that you can pull the core out of. The ATF deciding that all muzzle brakes are suppressor cores isn't going to work out too well in court I'd imagine. Exactly my point as well. Extremely similar, almost indistinguishable. Yet every one knows a muzzle brake from a suppressor core. Yeah, let's mess around with this long time standard and hope it goes well for us. 
Can any one here say that when they saw the MPX Carbine, their first thought was "Cool muzzle brake!"? l knew a baffle stack when I saw it. I was excited to see a major manufacturer enter the retail NFA market. Hopefully SIG spent sometime and designed a good suppressor. At which point how can they claim its "just a muzzle brake"? |
|
Quoted: It's not a baffle core at all... http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s137/unsungpatriots/60EFCF87-B5C1-47AF-AF1B-80E9D9272D4A-3460-00000200CC8EE057.jpg Photo credit Defensereview.com LMAO!  "No officer, that's not weed...it's a blend of my Mother's famous Italian spices!" "Oh really, then what's up with this pipe?" |
|
Quoted: In this case you aren't married to it. You can leave the tube off and send the barrel for service. You mean send your barreled upper and SUPPRESSOR CORE in for service. I don't know about you, but anytime I've had to ship firearms (let along NFA goodies) anywhere, it has raised the hair on the back of my neck. In the event that your MPX is severley damaged in shipping or it gets stolen, you're left with a registered tube of aluminum (your "suppressor") that is completely useless on any other firearm unless you have a mill and some mad engineering & machining skills to turn it into a usable suppressor. Some people have that capability, but I'd wager most that are interested in this system do not. Personally, I don't think we should kid ourselves here. There are identifiable risks associated with this system and the ATF interpretations therein. I understand the enthusiasm, but let's be real. I'll believe it when I see it. |
|
Quoted:
Exactly my point as well. Extremely similar, almost indistinguishable. Yet every one knows a muzzle brake from a suppressor core. Yeah, let's mess around with this long time standard and hope it goes well for us.
Can any one here say that when they saw the MPX Carbine, their first thought was "Cool muzzle brake!"? l knew a baffle stack when I saw it. I was excited to see a major manufacturer enter the retail NFA market. Hopefully SIG spent sometime and designed a good suppressor. At which point how can they claim its "just a muzzle brake"? (24) The terms "firearm silencer" and "firearm muffler" mean any
device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm, including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, and any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication AAC made something similar back in 2011. 
This isn't anything new, just the first to actually hit the market. Where does ATF have room to say that it's a silencer, when without the outside registered sleeve and cap, it can't silence anything. Everyone knows a MB from a suppressor core yes, but where is the difference legally? My pinned MB556K is not a suppressor part, yet it's a permanently attached device with a hole down the middle and two ports that come out the side that you can attach a registered can to. The MPX has a permanently attached device with a hole down the middle and ports out the side that you can attach a registered can to. Same deal. They both act as baffles instead of a brake when the serialized part is attached. There is no difference. It's NFA brilliance. If ATF declared this muzzle device a suppressor part, they would have to say any muzzle device is a suppressor part. Any A2 flash hider is capable of taking a Gemtech HALO and works in the same way as baffle when the can is attached. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Exactly my point as well. Extremely similar, almost indistinguishable. Yet every one knows a muzzle brake from a suppressor core. Yeah, let's mess around with this long time standard and hope it goes well for us.
Can any one here say that when they saw the MPX Carbine, their first thought was "Cool muzzle brake!"? l knew a baffle stack when I saw it. I was excited to see a major manufacturer enter the retail NFA market. Hopefully SIG spent sometime and designed a good suppressor. At which point how can they claim its "just a muzzle brake"? (24) The terms "firearm silencer" and "firearm muffler" mean any
device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm, including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, and any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication AAC made something similar back in 2011. http://www.aacblog.com/wp-content/uploads/IMG_2237-600x450.jpg This isn't anything new, just the first to actually hit the market. Where does ATF have room to say that it's a silencer, when without the outside registered sleeve and cap, it can't silence anything. Everyone knows a MB from a suppressor core yes, but where is the difference legally? My pinned MB556K is not a suppressor part, yet it's a permanently attached device with a hole down the middle and two ports that come out the side that you can attach a registered can to. The MPX has a permanently attached device with a hole down the middle and ports out the side that you can attach a registered can to. Same deal. They both act as baffles instead of a brake when the serialized part is attached. There is no difference. It's NFA brilliance. If ATF declared this muzzle device a suppressor part, they would have to say any muzzle device is a suppressor part. Any A2 flash hider is capable of taking a Gemtech HALO and works in the same way as baffle when the can is attached. You miss point. I'll assume you are being genuine, and not purposely obtuse. Lots of manufacturers are offer similar designs. You know what the commonality between them all is? A completed, stamped, tax paid Form 4 before you can take home ANY of the parts. AAC was not going to be selling that barrel by its self. It came with a registered suppressor and was treated as the integral component of a NFA firearm, which it is. Permanently attaching a mono core to a short barrel is fairly common place. However, I am not aware of any one who will attach the core then send you on your way with half a suppressor attached to your gun. Then you wait for the approved Form 4, so you take home the rest of your suppressor? I have a TM Isis-2 9mm at work, still waiting for my paper to come back. Are you saying it is okay for me to take the core home in the mean time. Because without the tube it is simply a muzzle brake? Really? |
|
Quoted:
*snip* If ATF declared this muzzle device a suppressor part, they would have to say any muzzle device is a suppressor part. Any A2 flash hider is capable of taking a Gemtech HALO and works in the same way as baffle when the can is attached. I hope you down not work for the ATF. Such an ignorantly simplistic view would of course mean nothing but thread mount suppressors. 
ETA: The first GSG5s had a ATF mandated recall because of the fake can tube used. It was walled only on the out side, meaning that if one simply drilled a bunch on holes in the barrel, they would create a functioning suppressor. I am pretty sure one can similarly turn the "muzzle brake" of the MPX-C into a suppressor with a few layers of tape. Or maybe with a section of PVC water pipe. Remember, it does not have to be in any way durable, to be a silencer. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
*snip* If ATF declared this muzzle device a suppressor part, they would have to say any muzzle device is a suppressor part. Any A2 flash hider is capable of taking a Gemtech HALO and works in the same way as baffle when the can is attached. I hope you down not work for the ATF. Such an ignorantly simplistic view would of course mean nothing but thread mount suppressors. And if I recall, each and every muzzle brake design needs ATF approval to be considered a certified muzzle brake. |
|
Quoted:
You miss point. I'll assume you are being genuine, and not purposely obtuse. Lots of manufacturers are offer similar designs. You know what the commonality between them all is? A completed, stamped, tax paid Form 4 before you can take home ANY of the parts. AAC was not going to be selling that barrel by its self. It came with a registered suppressor If you took the silencer off would there still be a stamp involved? I'm going with no. and was treated as the integral component of a NFA firearm, which it is. Permanently attaching a mono core to a short barrel is fairly common place. However, I am not aware of any one who will attach the core then send you on your way with half a suppressor attached to your gun. Looks like Sig is Then you wait for the approved Form 4, so you take home the rest of your suppressor? I have a TM Isis-2 9mm at work, still waiting for my paper to come back. Are you saying it is okay for me to take the core home in the mean time. Because without the tube it is simply a muzzle brake? Really? Can you thread your core on to the barrel without the tube? You're still missing the point. What would stop AAC or Sig in this case from selling that barrel by itself? How is it any different than any other barrel with an integral brake? Because you could thread a tube over it? You could do that with any braked gun that had threads on it. The point is that the tube, the part you have to serialize and transfer is the silencer. The problem GSG ran into was that they were selling the tube that could be easily converted to a single chamber silencer without adding any additional parts. ETA: Huntertown Arms has been selling an Integral 10/22 barrel conversion with a similar construction as the MPX. They even mention that the barrel can be changed/repaired easily because the tube is the registered part. Are they going to sell the barrel by itself? No, they want to sell you the whole package with the tube. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Exactly my point as well. Extremely similar, almost indistinguishable. Yet every one knows a muzzle brake from a suppressor core. Yeah, let's mess around with this long time standard and hope it goes well for us.
Can any one here say that when they saw the MPX Carbine, their first thought was "Cool muzzle brake!"? l knew a baffle stack when I saw it. I was excited to see a major manufacturer enter the retail NFA market. Hopefully SIG spent sometime and designed a good suppressor. At which point how can they claim its "just a muzzle brake"? (24) The terms "firearm silencer" and "firearm muffler" mean any
device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm, including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, and any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication AAC made something similar back in 2011. http://www.aacblog.com/wp-content/uploads/IMG_2237-600x450.jpg This isn't anything new, just the first to actually hit the market. Where does ATF have room to say that it's a silencer, when without the outside registered sleeve and cap, it can't silence anything. Everyone knows a MB from a suppressor core yes, but where is the difference legally? My pinned MB556K is not a suppressor part, yet it's a permanently attached device with a hole down the middle and two ports that come out the side that you can attach a registered can to. The MPX has a permanently attached device with a hole down the middle and ports out the side that you can attach a registered can to. Same deal. They both act as baffles instead of a brake when the serialized part is attached. There is no difference. It's NFA brilliance. If ATF declared this muzzle device a suppressor part, they would have to say any muzzle device is a suppressor part. Any A2 flash hider is capable of taking a Gemtech HALO and works in the same way as baffle when the can is attached. Exactly. ATF doesn't get to write the law. Everyone needs to stop fretting about Sig's (apparent to me) brilliance. If people in this forum are seriously worried about people who are ignorant of the law, then why would we ever own Evil Black Rifles or suppressors, because LOTS of people think those are illegal; cops even on the suppressors. |
|
Quoted: Enough with all the bs bruhaha-my question is, with the suppressor tube installed-how well would this baby "suppress"? Calm down. The baffle, I mean compensator, section is 9.5" long and pretty damn thick, so what do you think? Watch the vid and find out (vs. traditional suppressor):  |
Armory Sponsor