User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/23/2003 10:17:07 PM EDT
[#1]
I believe the answer is no. The ATF considers a suppressor a flash hiding device.. and may not be attached to a post ban upper/ non threaded bbl..
Any readers please correct me if I am off base here.. John |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/23/2003 10:17:49 PM EDT
[#2]
Sorry, no, you can not.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/23/2003 10:58:49 PM EDT
[#3]
If its a mini or something you can, provided that it is legal for you to attach a flash suppressor. On a post ban AR, no way.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2003 12:06:42 AM EDT
[#4]
A post-ban AR is a semi-auto and accepts detachable magazines, so it is regulated under the AW ban. Such rifles are allowed to have only one of the named "evil features", and for an AR, that will be the pistol grip. A sound suppressor also acts as a flash suppressor (a very good one, too), and that would give the rifle TWO evil features, therefore making it an illegal AW.
So, no, you can't legally put a suppressor on a post-ban AR. -Troy |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2003 4:15:07 AM EDT
[#5]
I just went through this same discussion with my local Class III dealer. I wanted to register an AR as a short barreled rifle and also have the option of suppressing it. The only way this can be done is with a pre-ban rifle. Registering the rifle as an SBR does not trump the ban. Having a tax stamp for a suppressor does not trump the ban.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2003 4:32:21 AM EDT
[#6]
check out this site, i am looking at a suppressor for my Rem 700 LTR 223 from these guys.
[url]http//:www.soundtechsilencers.com[/url] there was an artilce in Varmint Hunter mag about these guys. They have info on the ATF rules and what not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2003 7:31:28 AM EDT
[#7]
You could put a thumbhole stock on a post ban AR and legally add a suppressor.
OR you could perm. attach the magazine (ie, no longer detachable) and add a can or a FH or a bayo-lug... |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2003 8:27:06 AM EDT
[#8]
Fight for the sunset of AW ban in 2004 and you can have all the E-VUL features on it! [:D]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2003 8:30:38 AM EDT
[#9]
You could put a thumbhole stock on a post ban AR and legally add a suppressor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2003 11:37:15 AM EDT
[#10]
I can't speak for the ATF but I have read that a thumbhole stock does not qualify as a pistol grip. But who cares ? I don't want to have a mickey mouse stock or a fixed magazine I want to suppress an AR15. This can be done. It just has to be a pre-ban rifle.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2003 1:32:25 PM EDT
[#11]
For the purposes of the 89 Import Ban, a thumbhole stock is not a pistol grip.
BUT, for the purposes of the 94 AW Ban, a thumbhole stock IS a pistol grip. So, replacing your post-ban AR's pistol grip with a thumbhole stock does not free up an evil feature. -Troy |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2003 4:52:07 PM EDT
[#12]
i think the thumbhole stock is an example of how the ATF will say you can have the stock, then say you cant have it, and insist that no matter what they say, they can make a different decision after they seize your gun
imo |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2003 6:05:36 PM EDT
[#13]
Wait a minute...
There is a way...legally. I use a Gogogadgets.net vertical grip that is not considered a protruding pistol grip in the eyes of the ATF. Its like the ZM weapons version, only it is longer and is comfortable. I can legally add a suppressor because the threaded barrel is my one bad part. Just thought I would throw that in... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2003 6:31:44 PM EDT
[#14]
But if your threaded barrel is one bad feature then the sound suppressor that is considered a flash suppressor also would add up to two evil features by my math.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2003 7:33:11 PM EDT
[#15]
You could, but you would have to goto Jail, do not pass start & not collect your 200$... By the way, you landed on my property so pay me rent... I like the idea about fighting for the sunset & add as much as you like....
prosise |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2003 8:53:39 PM EDT
[#16]
While not the general concensus there are some lawyer types and NFA dealers who believe that pre-ban no longer qualifies once the SBR manufacturing is complete as in thier opinion they are new manuf. post 94 guns.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2003 9:08:49 PM EDT
[#17]
Quoted: But if your threaded barrel is one bad feature then the sound suppressor that is considered a flash suppressor also would add up to two evil features by my math. WRONG again. You can have 1 of the two: 1. Flash hider with threads 2. Threads Since a silencer is also a flash-hider, #1 works. Simple way to bypass the current AW ban. Make your post-ban full-auto (legally of course), thus its no longer goverened by the current AW ban which is only for semi-auto. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2003 9:11:47 PM EDT
[#18]
Quoted: Simple way to bypass the current AW ban. Make your post-ban full-auto (legally of course), thus its no longer goverened by the current AW ban which is only for semi-auto. What about FOPA 1986? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2003 9:22:06 PM EDT
[#19]
Quoted: Quoted: Simple way to bypass the current AW ban. Make your post-ban full-auto (legally of course), thus its no longer goverened by the current AW ban which is only for semi-auto. What about FOPA 1986? What about it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2003 9:30:15 PM EDT
[#20]
I thought the only way to make it a full auto is to buy a M16 reciever, which is about 4000 & the paperwork. Then pay 200 for the tax stamp. AM i missing something.
Prosise |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2003 9:44:25 PM EDT
[#21]
Quoted: I thought the only way to make it a full auto is to buy a M16 reciever, which is about 4000 & the paperwork. Then pay 200 for the tax stamp. AM i missing something. Prosise Yes. You are missing at least two other options which can use post-ban receivers (that are not blocked like newer Colt's, which may also require some gunsmithing and/or some M16 parts...). 1. Registered drop-in auto sear 2. Registered lightning link |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2003 5:08:54 AM EDT
[#22]
Quoted: Quoted: But if your threaded barrel is one bad feature then the sound suppressor that is considered a flash suppressor also would add up to two evil features by my math. WRONG again. You can have 1 of the two: 1. Flash hider with threads 2. Threads Since a silencer is also a flash-hider, #1 works. Simple way to bypass the current AW ban. Make your post-ban full-auto (legally of course), thus its no longer goverened by the current AW ban which is only for semi-auto. Exactly, that is why my post-ban setup is a legal way to add a suppressor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2003 6:18:54 AM EDT
[#23]
Quoted: Exactly, that is why my post-ban setup is a legal way to add a suppressor. I have an extra Colt pre-ban 20" match H-BAR upper that I want to preserve without welding a brake on it, and its very accurate. I've thought about doing this same thing so I can put it on a post-ban lower... and luckily, I don't have to neuter the bayonet lug since it doesn't have one. [:D] |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2003 6:20:47 AM EDT
[#24]
Quoted: Wait a minute... There is a way...legally. I use a Gogogadgets.net vertical grip that is not considered a protruding pistol grip in the eyes of the ATF. Its like the ZM weapons version, only it is longer and is comfortable. I can legally add a suppressor because the threaded barrel is my one bad part. Just thought I would throw that in... Can you post a pic to this "vertical grip"? I went to the site, and the merchandise, in fact all of the links, appear to have nothing on them....? What's it cost? Thanks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2003 11:53:10 AM EDT
[#25]
Here is the relevant law:
A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of the following characteristics: a) a folding or telescopic stock; b) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; c) a bayonet mount; d) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and e) a grenade launcher; So there is no prohibition on sound suppressors. Threads are a different story, but: So, from (d), it is simple English to read and see that since a post-ban gun usually has no threads, you are NOT threading it for a flash suppressor, but threading it for a Sound Suppressor. If Congress wanted to ban threads, they could have added section (f), stating "threads of any kind". If they wanted to ban Sound Suppressors, they could have added section (g) stating "a sound suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a sound suppressor". They didn't; clearly they did not intend this or they would have written the law this way. [b]The whole thing got muddied, when BATF issued a ruling that a sound suppressor was a flash hider, (a flash suppressor is NOT a sound suppressor though), and was thus illegal to attach via any method. This is why you are being told, no you cannot attach a sound suppressor to a post-ban rifle.[/b] This is a good example of why this law is so bad, and MUST not be allowed to be re-newed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2003 1:50:29 PM EDT
[#26]
Oh, news to me. I was of the impression that the flash suppressor and the threads that it was on counted as two features, not one. Learned something new...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2003 3:17:52 PM EDT
[#27]
As for the attachment of the "CAN"....it can be done without threads.There are several threadless type mounting systems that are made by the manufacturer of the suppressors.Such mount has been referred to as a bayonet lok or B-Lok as marketed by Gemtech.As for the flash suppressor part of the can....that is a gray area and will be construed differently by several individuals.The suppressor is marketed as suppressing sound signature...not flash.It is known though that a "can" suppresses flash and muzzle blast as well.Just as it acts as a muzzle brake too.IMO and only in my opinion...is it OK to mount a sound suppressor on a post ban if the proper mounting system is mounted to the barrel considering that it is a sound suppressor as intentionally marketed.It will aslo be readily and quickly removable if the need arised to mask it.You can find this on GemTechs website referred to as the B-Lok.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2003 4:30:36 PM EDT
[#28]
Quoted: is it OK to mount a sound suppressor on a post ban if the proper mounting system is mounted to the barrel considering that it is a sound suppressor as intentionally marketed. HK 3-lug is an example of a mounting system that is not threads. The law says what the law says. The BATF has their interpretation. As far as I know there is not Case Law to decide what is final. This is why pre-ban receivers cost more. Get one, remove all doubt. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2003 4:48:46 PM EDT
[#29]
Quoted: Quoted: Wait a minute... There is a way...legally. I use a Gogogadgets.net vertical grip that is not considered a protruding pistol grip in the eyes of the ATF. Its like the ZM weapons version, only it is longer and is comfortable. I can legally add a suppressor because the threaded barrel is my one bad part. Just thought I would throw that in... Can you post a pic to this "vertical grip"? I went to the site, and the merchandise, in fact all of the links, appear to have nothing on them....? What's it cost? Thanks. [url]http://www.printroom.com/EditAlbumPhoto.asp?userid=007hitman&album_id=128685&image_id=6[/url] Not sure if this link works. Was $35. including shipping. Havent been to the website in awhile. Ph# 530-674-9179. email:[email protected] He takes forever to get back to you. I was willing to give up some comfort to be able to have a suppressor, but found it just as comfortable as if I had the pistol grip. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2003 5:30:31 PM EDT
[#30]
I just went to the site. He seems to be updating it. I'd email him about it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2003 5:42:17 PM EDT
[#31]
As much as I would love to own a sound suppressor, I'm not sure I'd want other people around me to have sound suppressors.
Hmm... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2003 6:04:56 PM EDT
[#32]
Quoted: While not the general concensus there are some lawyer types and NFA dealers who believe that pre-ban no longer qualifies once the SBR manufacturing is complete as in thier opinion they are new manuf. post 94 guns. This was my understanding, but a bunch of folks here said they had read an ATF written ruling that indicated that a pre-ban, which had been SBR-ed after the ban, was still considered a pre-ban. I would be very interested in seeing this in writing. Hopefully, none of this crap will matter in 1.4 years. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2003 6:22:56 PM EDT
[#33]
I was wondering if a person has to have a license to put a suppressor on a pre-ban. Or is it just one of the things allowed.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2003 6:32:49 PM EDT
[#34]
Quoted: I was wondering if a person has to have a license to put a suppressor on a pre-ban. Or is it just one of the things allowed. No license. You have a form and a $200 tax stamp, just like full-auto. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2003 7:44:24 AM EDT
[#35]
Quoted: As for the attachment of the "CAN"....it can be done without threads.There are several threadless type mounting systems that are made by the manufacturer of the suppressors.Such mount has been referred to as a bayonet lok or B-Lok as marketed by Gemtech.As for the flash suppressor part of the can....that is a gray area and will be construed differently by several individuals.The suppressor is marketed as suppressing sound signature...not flash.It is known though that a "can" suppresses flash and muzzle blast as well.Just as it acts as a muzzle brake too.IMO and only in my opinion...is it OK to mount a sound suppressor on a post ban if the proper mounting system is mounted to the barrel considering that it is a sound suppressor as intentionally marketed.It will aslo be readily and quickly removable if the need arised to mask it.You can find this on GemTechs website referred to as the B-Lok. It's not a "B-Lock" as in bayonet, it's a "Bi-Lock" as in two mounting points. The Gemtech bi-lock uses a special flash hider with two mounting points for the suppressor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2003 10:53:49 AM EDT
[#36]
And according to GemTech and the BATF you cannot mount a "can" on a post ban gun no matter what method of attachment you use.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2003 1:31:54 PM EDT
[#37]
Quoted: And according to GemTech and the BATF you cannot mount a "can" on a post ban gun no matter what method of attachment you use. That is because it is also considered a flash hider. Get rid of another feature (i.e. the pistol grip) and you CAN have it on a post ban, even with threads. Or make it full-auto and your rifle is no longer governed by the AWB so you can do almost anything to it while its still a machine gun. |
|
|
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.
