Sig: Our muzzle brake is not a silencer
SIG Sauer sues ATF for calling its ‘muzzle brake’ a gun silencer. It’s the same agency that says pieces of plastic are guns.
9 Responses to “Sig: Our muzzle brake is not a silencer”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
April 10th, 2014 at 9:46 pm
Outstanding!!! A suppressor that amplifies noise…
Only the ATF could be that stupid..
Big perk is that Sig has the bucks to make those bastards squirm…
April 10th, 2014 at 10:26 pm
Considering that Innovator just sued and won against the ATF for exactly the same thing, I think Sig’s chances are good. http://www.guns.com/2014/03/27/makes-innovator-enterprises-v-atf-suppressor-case-interesting/
Didn’t Sig plan on making a registered tube that would go over the muzzle brake and make it suppressed? I agree there is no doubt that it functions as a muzzle brake and would take a true tube (that would be registered) to make it a suppressor. Hopefully we can finally just have a true suppressor regulated and not the conglomeration of parts that have other uses regulated because they might be used to make one.
April 10th, 2014 at 11:58 pm
I’m with Paul. In my experience, muzzle brakes are LOUDENERS.
April 11th, 2014 at 1:05 am
To be fair to the ATF (I’m not a fan of them at all, and think that they should be defunded), Sig designed the brake to be the baffles of an integral suppressor. According to the NFA, every part of a registered suppressor is considered a suppressor by itself. It’s kind of similar to how a drop-in auto-sear is considered a machine gun on its own.
April 11th, 2014 at 1:34 am
Sadler, if you are correct, the association between the two parts is not a legal construct until both parts are at least available. The ATF jumped the gun and the shark. If the ATF was right, jo one could ever thread the muzzle of any barrel, because those threads are required to put a suppressor on a firearm.
April 11th, 2014 at 9:54 am
We could event take that a step further Rivrdog because a barrel is required to attach the suppressor to after threading.
The shoestrings on my shoes are considered machine guns. Does that mean when I have a semi auto rifle and lace up shoes that makes me conspiring to have machine gun?
That would compose two components of a machine gun after all…
April 11th, 2014 at 12:59 pm
To feel better about the feds, all you have to do is repeat over an over, “The Government is always right.”
After a while you can change the words to “Prisons are comfortable.”
April 11th, 2014 at 3:11 pm
Baffle stacks that have a purpose OTHER THAN merely being a silencer componant are NOT the same as baffle stacks that are only good for silencer componants.
Otherwise, you couldn’t possess metal washers or rubber disks. Or pipes. Or screws.
Sig’s data showing the baffle stack DOES actually affect recoil is the key. The recent court ruling on EXACTLY THIS ISSUE (actually, the Innovator comes closer to being a “silencer” than the Sig. . . the Innovator focuses the sound forward so it’s quiter behind the gun), where ATF ruled a muzzle brake was a “silencer” based on configuration, NOT the only legally relevant facts — “Can you carry the gun around and shoot with the thing installed?”* and “Does it make the gun quieter”
Now, the follow-on sleeve that would enclose the baffel stack and make it function as a silencer WOULD be a silencer componant, would coincidentally be the traceable part anyway, and thus mean that it would be a unitary silencer — no different than any welded together silencer you can’t disassemble without ruining it.
Keep in mind that almost ANY functional muzzle brake with room for gas expansion would become a silencer if you put a gas-tight sleeve that could take the pressure — the statutory definition says that silencers make things quieter, but the law doesn’t specify how quiet. The same expansion chamber that makes an AK74 muzzle brake work the way it does is the same expansion chamber that would make it a silencer (probably a 1dB or so silencer, but still legally a silencer) if all the holes but the muzzle were faired over.
Remember that the muzzle device for the XM177 (Colt “Commando” 10.5″ AR carbine) was ruled a “silencer”, because it dropped the muzzle blast a couple of dB. . .
Something that makes things LOUDER, and provides recoil and/or muzzle flip control is not a silencer. It is legally and technically a muzzle brake.
* Yes, a “silencer” built out of 55 gallon oil drums mounted on a stand at your test range isn;t a “silencer” at all, under the statutory definition. Which means the “silencer” definition in the NFA (surprisingly) makes a lot of sense – the idea was to prevent the Hollywood idea of an assassin walking around with a can on his gat going “THUT! THUT!” without anyone being able to hear him.
April 12th, 2014 at 4:20 am
Hope they win…