How can you tell if a muzzle brake is AWB compliant?

milktree

milktree

NES Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
8,028
Likes
11,342
Feedback: 35 / 0 / 0
Subject says it all. Almost.

I want to put a minimalist muzzle brake to cover the threads on a threaded barrel, but... there's these things marketed as "brakes" that also say "pre-ban", which would make me think they're not brakes after all.

One website I saw suggested that an A2 flash hider and post-ban A2 compensator only differed in that the former has a big open end, the latter a small, just bigger than the bullet end. http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=395006

So... what makes this:

http://www.midwayusa.com/viewProduct/?productNumber=550170
or this:
http://www.midwayusa.com/viewProduct/?productNumber=942876
pre-ban?

How can one tell if it'd fail the MA AWB test?
 
The problem isn't the device, but rather the method of attachment to the barrel. Unless the gun is pre ban, the muzzle brake must be permanently attached to the barrel. This involves pinning, silver soldering or some other form of permanent attachment.
 
Gammon said:
The problem isn't the device, but rather the method of attachment to the barrel. Unless the gun is pre ban, the muzzle brake must be permanently attached to the barrel. This involves pinning, silver soldering or some other form of permanent attachment.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? While any muzzle device must be permanently attached like you describe, that doesn't change the fact that it's illegal to permanently attach a flash hider. Whatever thingie is welded/pinned/silver soldered to the muzzle must *also* be AWB compliant.

Hence the question.

So, here's a re-phrasing of the question:

If I were to blind pin and weld either of the two products listed to a rifle, would it be legal in Mass? If not, how can one tell if a muzzle device, once blind pinned and welded to the muzzle, would be Mass. AWB compliant?
 
milktree, I do not get much out of the search feature so dont worry. Have you thought about just a thread cover? That would be blind pin welded.
As long as your barel will be of the legal length that is.
 
The words on the package it came in.

No, I'm not kidding.

BATFE no longer tests suppression devices.... so all you can really do is trust the manufacturer. There is no set in stone metric of when something becomes a flash suppressor.

-Mike
 
drgrant said:
The words on the package it came in.

No, I'm not kidding.

BATFE no longer tests suppression devices.... so all you can really do is trust the manufacturer. There is no set in stone metric of when something becomes a flash suppressor.

-Mike
Click to expand...

Wow... that's completely stupid. Oh, right. Gun law. Stupid. Of course.

At least it's easy to follow.
 
milktree said:
Wow... that's completely stupid. Oh, right. Gun law. Stupid. Of course.

At least it's easy to follow.
Click to expand...

Well, sort of. If you look at various muzzle device testing/approval, you'll find some interesting trends. There are many brakes that don't reduce flash, some of them even seem to increase it. On the other hand, though, there are some brakes (which were tested and approved, at the time!) that seem to, perhaps, "unintentionally" reduce the level of flash that otherwise would exist had there been no brake at all.

As someone else stated, I'd be more worried about the attachment method. A DA/prosecutor is going to have a fun time trying to prove what your device is; on the other hand, A poor job of securing the device to the muzzle can lead to an AWB, or worse yet, an NFA violation. (EG, if your gun is 16.5 inches WITH the brake/fs attached, that device had better be permanently attached. )

-Mike
 
drgrant said:
As someone else stated, I'd be more worried about the attachment method. A DA/prosecutor is going to have a fun time trying to prove what your device is; on the other hand, A poor job of securing the device to the muzzle can lead to an AWB, or worse yet, an NFA violation. (EG, if your gun is 16.5 inches WITH the brake/fs attached, that device had better be permanently attached. )

-Mike
Click to expand...

Blind pin and weld or silver solder is pretty easy to do, so I'm not really worried about that.

16.5"? Isn't the NFA limit 16"? Or are you saying that there's no brakes that extend the barrel as little as 1/2 inch?

In this case, the barrel is 16" to the muzzle, so I could just remove the threads (not cut them off, but file them down) and not have a problem. But that looks like ass.

A thread cover would be fine, although I'd like one small enough that I could change the gas block/front sight in the future if I wanted to.

Or I could just get a hex nut and weld that on. You know.. a "gun nut" :)
 
Minimum barrel length was soon amended to 16 inches for rimfire rifles and by 1960 had been amended to 16 inches for centerfire rifles as well.
I copied that from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act, but I am unsure. Drgrant is usually spot on. Maybe the extra 1/2" is to avoid any discrepancies?

Most thread covers I have seen are barrel diameter, so gas block removal shouldn't be a problem. Even if it's larger you can probably get it turned to barrel diameter by anyone with a lathe.
 
milktree said:
Blind pin and weld or silver solder is pretty easy to do, so I'm not really worried about that.

16.5"? Isn't the NFA limit 16"? Or are you saying that there's no brakes that extend the barrel as little as 1/2 inch?
Click to expand...

It is, but the extra .5 is probably for "insurance" against creative BATFE measuring tactics... it might also be to meet the 26 inch minimum OAL rule, as well.

-Mike
 
drgrant said:
It is, but the extra .5 is probably for "insurance" against creative BATFE measuring tactics... it might also be to meet the 26 inch minimum OAL rule, as well.

-Mike
Click to expand...

This barrel is 16" from muzzle to breech, 16.5" from muzzle to the end of the barrel extension. At least as well as I can measure with a tape measure.

OAL isn't a problem, even a fully collapsed collapsable stock has a 10" length of pull, 14.5" to the breech. An A1 stock is 3" longer than that.
 
Carlson Compensators.

The designer (Greg Carlson) is a NES member and a stand up guy. His compensator works great and was tested by the BATFE so you know it's compliant. They are available from Brownells (part number 100-004-043.)

http://www.carlsoncompsinc.com/Carlson_Comp.htm

(I don't work for Greg, just a happy customer.)
 
jasons said:
Carlson Compensators.

The designer (Greg Carlson) is a NES member and a stand up guy. His compensator works great and was tested by the BATFE so you know it's compliant. They are available from Brownells (part number 100-004-043.)

http://www.carlsoncompsinc.com/Carlson_Comp.htm

(I don't work for Greg, just a happy customer.)
Click to expand...

Is the Carlson Comp. at the quiet, or noisy end of the spectrum as compared to other compensators? How 'bout when compared to a plain ended barrel? Basically I'd like the quietest (the least noisy) compensator that actually helps that I can find. I'm most concerned about noise to the shooter.
 
milktree said:
Is the Carlson Comp. at the quiet, or noisy end of the spectrum as compared to other compensators? How 'bout when compared to a plain ended barrel? Basically I'd like the quietest (the least noisy) compensator that actually helps that I can find. I'm most concerned about noise to the shooter.
Click to expand...

I don't have a DB meter so I can't say for sure, but I'd say it's a little bit louder than a plain barrel but quieter than most other comps I've tried. It's not obnoxiously loud.
 
milktree said:
Is the Carlson Comp. at the quiet, or noisy end of the spectrum as compared to other compensators? How 'bout when compared to a plain ended barrel? Basically I'd like the quietest (the least noisy) compensator that actually helps that I can find. I'm most concerned about noise to the shooter.
Click to expand...

It has been my experience that the comps that do the most to reduce recoil/muzzle flip also produce the greatest amount of noise as the gas is directed to the side and back toward the shooter.
 
Reviving an old thread here but I believe my question is completely relevant.



drgrant said:
The words on the package it came in.

No, I'm not kidding.

BATFE no longer tests suppression devices.... so all you can really do is trust the manufacturer. There is no set in stone metric of when something becomes a flash suppressor.

-Mike
Click to expand...

After much research on the topic, this notion seems to repeated often. Of course, IANAL and proceed at your own risk and all that jazz...but would you say these products A.) fall into that category, B.) might really be pushing the envelope or C.) clearly mislabeled?


http://www.ebay.com/itm/251272646760?_trksid=p2055119.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK:MEBIDX:IT


http://www.ebay.com/itm/RSM-A2-Styl...8&pid=100005&rk=1&rkt=6&sd=191447101678&rt=nc
 
milktree said:
Is the Carlson Comp. at the quiet, or noisy end of the spectrum as compared to other compensators? How 'bout when compared to a plain ended barrel? Basically I'd like the quietest (the least noisy) compensator that actually helps that I can find. I'm most concerned about noise to the shooter.
Click to expand...

I use Griffen tactical comps, they are excellent and are on the low end of the side blast and noise. Much less obnoxious to you or those around you when shooting.

I get mine here...

http://www.joeboboutfitters.com/Griffin_Armament_M4SD_II_Tactical_Compensator_XHP5_p/ga-xhp556tc.htm
 
Double Tap said:
Reviving an old thread here but I believe my question is completely relevant.





After much research on the topic, this notion seems to repeated often. Of course, IANAL and proceed at your own risk and all that jazz...but would you say these products A.) fall into that category, B.) might really be pushing the envelope or C.) clearly mislabeled?


http://www.ebay.com/itm/251272646760?_trksid=p2055119.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK:MEBIDX:IT


http://www.ebay.com/itm/RSM-A2-Styl...8&pid=100005&rk=1&rkt=6&sd=191447101678&rt=nc
Click to expand...


My bet is mislabeled but god only knows. They look more like FH to me but "looks" are irrelevant, legally.

On one forum I was on awhile ago, a machinist made his own replica of a smith vortex FH. It looked almost identical to the smith but the facets on the prongs were not cut the same way. When he tested it, it barely did anything to suppress flash, but it looked strikingly similar to a smith. That's why you can't really go by looks alone.

The entire flash suppressor thing is ludicrous. For example if you give me a carbine with an A2 birdcage FLASH SUPPRESSOR on it, I can find ammo to run in that gun that will still create a significant flash signature. I have no idea what ammunition BATFE used as a standard to test for suppression, but I know that the ammunition used is an important variable. There are also a variety of brakes out there now that also have significant flash suppression, even if that wasn't an intended design feature of the device.

There are a variety of what-if scenarios with all of this, and nobody really knows when/if/how it would ever be tested legally. It doesn't help that in MA there are very few AWB cases to begin with, and there are likely ZERO regarding the legality of someone's muzzle device.

-Mike
 
both have very wide openings aka flash hider, muzzle brakes normal opening is bullet sized.
 
I wouldn't even be asking this question if I was looking for a muzzle device for a typical 5.56 rifle as there's clearly a million and one offerings that aren't in that grey area. However, options for my 9mm AR barrel with 1/2" x 36 threads are quite limited.
 

Similar threads

Muzzle-loading cannon (from extruded brass stock)
Replies
11
Views
248
MisterHappy
MisterHappy
How to Remove an Older Handguard
Replies
10
Views
408
mac1911
M
Anyone know a skilled woodworker in Boston Metrowest area?
Replies
0
Views
121
hminsky
H
Faxon Firearms ar-15 barrels with integral brake
Replies
6
Views
440
cathouse01
cathouse01
Modifying preban uzi mags for AR9 colt lower
Replies
15
Views
285
Tallahassee
Tallahassee
Back
Top Bottom