PDA

View Full Version : When is a muzzle brake an unregistered silencer?


SC-Texas
08-31-16, 16:11
When is a muzzle brake an unregistered silencer?

Is it when the gas is dispersed by a certain port?

Is it when the brake is a certain length?

Is it simply when the BATFE says so?

I guess this guy didn't get the message from the Sig case or with his first conviction and 6mo probation.

Be sure and read the screen shot of his eBay ad where he discusses the "Low tone".

As wrong as the law is, it is the law.

This man is going to jail because he ignored it. It's something to think about when gathering parts for a solvent trap suppressor or a home built suppressor.

The real question is why is this a silencer part and not just a long muzzle brake?

At what point does it change from a muzzle brake to a silencer change from a muzzle brake to a silencer part?

Is the standard the point at which there is no more gas impacting the muzzle brake ports?

Is it when it's too long?

The batf has a history of seizing these vendors credit card records, invoices, emails and cash receipts and then going and visiting everyone that bought something online. If if the convicted felon sold these on eBay, which he obviously did, the BATFE will subpoena the eBay records and track down each of those purchasers. If he sold them on other online sales forms, they will subpoena those records and track the buyers down.

My guess is that even if the brake was bought face to face with a credit card they will be calling and visiting these buyers and demanding the return of the parts unless that customer has an approved form 1.

I advise my www.TexasGunTrust.com clients to wait for the approved form 1 to begin accumulationing the parts for their suppressors build.

http://www.wfmj.com/story/32807776/atf-arrests-east-palestine-man-with-nearly-200-firearm-silencersuh

The link to the actual Ebay sale: http://www.ebay.com/itm/1-x-6-SUPER-GILLED-MUZZLE-BRAKE-PORTS-1-2x28-Pitch-Recoil-Reducer-/221957276824

http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160831/96a22c55f84f7bff17a799885761f53e.jpg


http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160831/59b8832be26599ec09c77d97ed27285e.jpg

http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160831/9e5b7f6f83cf281be27d9bfa7ed2983b.jpg

http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160831/8f07a1ccb1e9737f009efe027b264b12.jpg

http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160831/1eea2d19f153e5b8c022d86ec17971d1.jpg





Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
markm
08-31-16, 16:54
That thing us just a brake. It'd make a crappy silencer core for several reasons. It eats too much of the internal capacity of a silencer, and it's friggin aluminum. It might be a mediocre rimfire silencer core however.

As that sits, though.... it offers ZERO sound suppression.
Ryno12
08-31-16, 17:20
That thing us just a brake. It'd make a crappy silencer core for several reasons. It eats too much of the internal capacity of a silencer, and it's friggin aluminum. It might be a mediocre rimfire silencer core however.

As that sits, though.... it offers ZERO sound suppression.

Yep. It's just a long, retarded muzzle device.

Not sure why this is even a thread. Seems as if it's just to solicit business.
SC-Texas
08-31-16, 17:33
There is a thread because we have a lot of members and I have a lot of clients that build suppressors on form 1s

The solvent trap suppressor is a good example of this. This is always a fun debate. Is the solvent Trap illegal to possess without a Form 1?

If it is legal to possess, at what point does it become illegal?

That is a entertaining debate in and of itself. This is a little more clear in the sense that when someone looks at this, it is pretty obviously a suppressor core.

I would be willing to bet that there are some solvent trap tubes that this thing fits in quite nicely.

A lot of people seem to think that it is okay to start accumulating the parts for their form 1 silencer prior to the form one being approved.

We also get into debates about dual use parts.

The thing that is important with this guy's conviction is that it shows that something that has a dual nature, and other words it can be used as a muzzle break or a suppressor part, can easily be labeled an unregistered silencer.

And I have that debate on a weekly basis if not a daily basis some weeks

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
SC-Texas
08-31-16, 17:34
That thing us just a brake. It'd make a crappy silencer core for several reasons. It eats too much of the internal capacity of a silencer, and it's friggin aluminum. It might be a mediocre rimfire silencer core however.

As that sits, though.... it offers ZERO sound suppression.
If you guys remember the Sig MPX debacle in which the ATF ruled that the MPX is muzzle break was actually a suppressor part. The Court ruled in favor of the ATF. That part , made the firearm louder.



Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
BigWaylon
08-31-16, 18:33
That part would also take some machining to make it a monocore.

It would all depend on where the meter was set as to whether it reduced the sound.
SC-Texas
08-31-16, 22:06
That part would also take some machining to make it a monocore.

It would all depend on where the meter was set as to whether it reduced the sound.

The problem is that tech branch does not have any guidelines for testing other than obtain the desired result.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
nova3930
09-01-16, 00:16
If you guys remember the Sig MPX debacle in which the ATF ruled that the MPX is muzzle break was actually a suppressor part. The Court ruled in favor of the ATF. That part , made the firearm louder.



Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
am I mistaken or didn't that turn on the fact the mpx brake was threaded externally to facilitate adding an enclosing tube? at least that's what it always seemed to me

this thing would take quite a lot of work to attach anything short of welding it together. if that's the direction things are going then any brake is a potential suppressor

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
SC-Texas
09-01-16, 07:55
I believe it was based on the length

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
TAZ
09-01-16, 14:41
It may have also been based on his claims. He mentions that it makes a nice low tone. That can be interpreted as it reduces the sound volume. It may only take it down .0000000001dB but technically it's still a reduction. A suppressor does t have to be good to need a tax stamp donation. Not agreeing with the law or the ATF's interpretation of it. We also have no clue what Albert Einstein in disguise said, wrote... to the UC agents that tried to buy one. Hell for all we know he is the UC and this is just his cover.
nova3930
09-01-16, 14:52
It may have also been based on his claims. He mentions that it makes a nice low tone. That can be interpreted as it reduces the sound volume. It may only take it down .0000000001dB but technically it's still a reduction. A suppressor does t have to be good to need a tax stamp donation. Not agreeing with the law or the ATF's interpretation of it. We also have no clue what Albert Einstein in disguise said, wrote... to the UC agents that tried to buy one. Hell for all we know he is the UC and this is just his cover.
kind of a question I've tossed around in my head, if I could keep the dB level constant, but shift the frequency of sound to the point a human ear can't hear it, either down into infra sonic or up into ultrasonic, have I created a suppressor by the legal definition? I could see it going both ways

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
VIP3R 237
09-01-16, 15:36
18 U.S.C., § 921(A)(24)

The term “Firearm Silencer” or “Firearm Muffler” means any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm, including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for the use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication.

Notice the word 'intended' That is why Sig lost their battle because their MPX barrel was designed and/or intended to be the baffle stack for a Silencer. I'm sure that the ATF's argument against this particualr brake is that it could be intended and redesigned to be a silencer part.
SC-Texas
09-01-16, 16:32
I believe the same opinion also went into the length of the muzzle brake that exceeded common usage.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
Renegade
09-01-16, 16:59
"NO ONE ELSE HAS THIS"

That was your first clue dude.
mtdawg169
09-01-16, 17:13
Read the link guys. This guy was busted twice for selling these. He apparently didn't learn his lesson the first time around.
markm
09-01-16, 22:11
Read the link guys. This guy was busted twice for selling these. He apparently didn't learn his lesson the first time around.

If true, that's huge. There's some tards that just don't know when to quit. I still think the thing is a useless piece of crap.
Iraqgunz
09-02-16, 02:05
When you get into a phone booth with a Cheetah, close the door and try and jack it off. Don't be surprised when it mauls your ass. -Confucius 500 B.C.-
linker711
09-02-16, 07:34
I stumbled on this thing a while ago while browsing Ebay, took one look, and ran like the wind. Nothing good here whichever way you look at it. With the Sig ruling, this thing stands no chance at legitimacy in the eyes of the ATF. From the design side, as it has already been stated prior it is a very inefficient monocore design.