Would this be a suppressor part?

Yes, it can be legal to make a silencer. For everything Form-1, from silencer designs that are easily made, to filing forms with the BATF, to 3D modeling. Remember, you must have an approved BATF Form-1 to make a silencer. All NFA laws apply.

Moderators: mpallett, bakerjw

User avatar
CMV
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 734
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 6:31 pm
Location: NC

Would this be a suppressor part?

Post by CMV » Sat Jan 04, 2014 8:39 pm

If I wanted the look of a reflex design - something that would extend back over the barrel & under an AR rail - but didn't want to actually make the suppressor that way, would I be able to do this?

Image

An extension to go on the front of the suppressor to go back over the barrel & under the rail. It could be unscrewed when the suppressor was used on a different rifle. It would attach to the suppressor, but wouldn't do anything other than cosmetics - No gasses going thru it, not aiding in aligning/attaching the suppressor to the barrel. So if stamp was for 8", the suppressor was 8", but then this 4" empty extension was attached to suppressor, would I still be good as far as actually having an 8" suppressor like F1 says & not having an extra 'suppressor part' lying around when it's not in use?

I'm thinking that would allow me to get the look I want on rifle A but be able to use the can on bull barrel rifle B.
--------------------------------------

"Sorry but you cannot use search at this time. Please try again in a few minutes"
"This board is currently disabled"
These things make me :(

User avatar
MCKNBRD
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 356
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2011 9:19 pm

Re: Would this be a suppressor part?

Post by MCKNBRD » Sat Jan 04, 2014 9:17 pm

"Forgiveness, not permission"...

:lol:

As it doesn't do anything other than change the looks, I'd say that it doesn't make any difference. Of course, sliding stocks, pistol grips, and 'things that go up' change things...

Byrdman

User avatar
Bendersquint
Industry Professional
Posts: 11359
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:19 pm
Location: North Carolina
Contact:

Re: Would this be a suppressor part?

Post by Bendersquint » Sat Jan 04, 2014 11:04 pm

CMV wrote:If I wanted the look of a reflex design - something that would extend back over the barrel & under an AR rail - but didn't want to actually make the suppressor that way, would I be able to do this?

Image

An extension to go on the front of the suppressor to go back over the barrel & under the rail. It could be unscrewed when the suppressor was used on a different rifle. It would attach to the suppressor, but wouldn't do anything other than cosmetics - No gasses going thru it, not aiding in aligning/attaching the suppressor to the barrel. So if stamp was for 8", the suppressor was 8", but then this 4" empty extension was attached to suppressor, would I still be good as far as actually having an 8" suppressor like F1 says & not having an extra 'suppressor part' lying around when it's not in use?

I'm thinking that would allow me to get the look I want on rifle A but be able to use the can on bull barrel rifle B.
VERY VERY grey area.

If the tube is completely sealed off at the end of the barrel then no issues as instead of a 1/2-28 to attach the silencer it would be a 1-5/16-2X(or whatever) mount for the can. No issues.

If there is a gap that is enclosed you are looking for problems because of the threading of the hollow tube.

User avatar
CMV
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 734
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 6:31 pm
Location: NC

Re: Would this be a suppressor part?

Post by CMV » Sun Jan 05, 2014 11:36 am

Maybe this illustrates it better. Would that still be gray? Enough so that I should send to tech branch for clarification?

The endcap that attaches the can to the barrel is threaded 1/2-28. The can w/o the extension is the entire form-1 project. It can mount on any rifle with 1/2-28 threads and doesn't need the extension to operate. That endcap also has some OD threads for maybe the first .100. Those threads are what the extension piece could attach to. The extension piece itself only touches the can. There are no ports between the can & the extension. No gasses are going into the extension. Even if there were, the rear of it is wide open so anything passing through the extension would just flow backward over the gas block.

Image

Bendersquint wrote:
CMV wrote:If I wanted the look of a reflex design - something that would extend back over the barrel & under an AR rail - but didn't want to actually make the suppressor that way, would I be able to do this?

Image

An extension to go on the front of the suppressor to go back over the barrel & under the rail. It could be unscrewed when the suppressor was used on a different rifle. It would attach to the suppressor, but wouldn't do anything other than cosmetics - No gasses going thru it, not aiding in aligning/attaching the suppressor to the barrel. So if stamp was for 8", the suppressor was 8", but then this 4" empty extension was attached to suppressor, would I still be good as far as actually having an 8" suppressor like F1 says & not having an extra 'suppressor part' lying around when it's not in use?

I'm thinking that would allow me to get the look I want on rifle A but be able to use the can on bull barrel rifle B.
VERY VERY grey area.

If the tube is completely sealed off at the end of the barrel then no issues as instead of a 1/2-28 to attach the silencer it would be a 1-5/16-2X(or whatever) mount for the can. No issues.

If there is a gap that is enclosed you are looking for problems because of the threading of the hollow tube.
--------------------------------------

"Sorry but you cannot use search at this time. Please try again in a few minutes"
"This board is currently disabled"
These things make me :(

mollinst
Industry Professional
Posts: 219
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2011 8:07 pm
Location: MO
Contact:

Re: Would this be a suppressor part?

Post by mollinst » Sun Jan 05, 2014 1:06 pm

Faux suppressors are sold and mounted all of the time. In fact, the Walther P22 Used to come with one in the case - it might still, I don't know. You can screw just about anything you want onto the end of a barrel as long as it has no internal components that could effect the report of the firearm and, in fact, has no effect.

Bill
________________________________________________________
TACTICAL ARMZ
07-FFL, 02-SOT
www.tacticalarmz.com

User avatar
twodollarbill
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 420
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 6:25 pm
Location: wisconsin

Re: Would this be a suppressor part?

Post by twodollarbill » Sun Jan 05, 2014 1:28 pm

SBR your AR and make yourself HAPPY. 8)

User avatar
Bendersquint
Industry Professional
Posts: 11359
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:19 pm
Location: North Carolina
Contact:

Re: Would this be a suppressor part?

Post by Bendersquint » Sun Jan 05, 2014 1:52 pm

mollinst wrote:Faux suppressors are sold and mounted all of the time. In fact, the Walther P22 Used to come with one in the case - it might still, I don't know. You can screw just about anything you want onto the end of a barrel as long as it has no internal components that could effect the report of the firearm and, in fact, has no effect.

Bill
Can't be hollow on the inside either, has to be a sealed "solid" unit as even an empty space WILL suppress.

User avatar
Bendersquint
Industry Professional
Posts: 11359
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:19 pm
Location: North Carolina
Contact:

Re: Would this be a suppressor part?

Post by Bendersquint » Sun Jan 05, 2014 1:53 pm

CMV wrote:Maybe this illustrates it better. Would that still be gray? Enough so that I should send to tech branch for clarification?

The endcap that attaches the can to the barrel is threaded 1/2-28. The can w/o the extension is the entire form-1 project. It can mount on any rifle with 1/2-28 threads and doesn't need the extension to operate. That endcap also has some OD threads for maybe the first .100. Those threads are what the extension piece could attach to. The extension piece itself only touches the can. There are no ports between the can & the extension. No gasses are going into the extension. Even if there were, the rear of it is wide open so anything passing through the extension would just flow backward over the gas block.

Image
Based on this pic you are fine, would be nothing since its sealed and no gases can enter, just a big arse thread adapter.

User avatar
CMV
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 734
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 6:31 pm
Location: NC

Re: Would this be a suppressor part?

Post by CMV » Sun Jan 05, 2014 2:07 pm

twodollarbill wrote:SBR your AR and make yourself HAPPY. 8)
One of these days..... maybe if I ever build a 9mm one.

I have multiple ARs & they're all different so that's why I'm wanting to do this. For some with rails I just think I'd like the look. For one with a FSB out in front of a handguard, it wouldn't do any good. Have a remington 700 .223 project going now too. I want one can to fit all my .223's regardless of barrel type, but look a certain way on a few of them. Silly, I know.
--------------------------------------

"Sorry but you cannot use search at this time. Please try again in a few minutes"
"This board is currently disabled"
These things make me :(

User avatar
twodollarbill
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 420
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 6:25 pm
Location: wisconsin

Re: Would this be a suppressor part?

Post by twodollarbill » Sun Jan 05, 2014 5:06 pm

Here is a pic of my SPR.
The suppressor is a 1980's AWC M22, which is a reflex design and comes back over the barrel 4".
Barrel is a Noveske 16" Recon, Rail is Daniel Defense M4 and the suppressor just fits.
It took some head scratching to put it all together.

Image

User avatar
Bendersquint
Industry Professional
Posts: 11359
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:19 pm
Location: North Carolina
Contact:

Re: Would this be a suppressor part?

Post by Bendersquint » Sun Jan 05, 2014 5:10 pm

twodollarbill wrote:Here is a pic of my SPR.
The suppressor is a 1980's AWC M22, which is a reflex design and comes back over the barrel 4".
Barrel is a Noveske 16" Recon, Rail is Daniel Defense M4 and the suppressor just fits.
It took some head scratching to put it all together.

Image
That OAL is.....staggering!

User avatar
twodollarbill
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 420
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 6:25 pm
Location: wisconsin

Re: Would this be a suppressor part?

Post by twodollarbill » Sun Jan 05, 2014 5:25 pm

Bendersquint wrote:
That OAL is.....staggering!
That's what she said 8)

WarbirdsCustomGuns
Member
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2011 10:55 am
Contact:

Re: Would this be a suppressor part?

Post by WarbirdsCustomGuns » Mon Jan 06, 2014 6:41 am

Bendersquint wrote: Can't be hollow on the inside either, has to be a sealed "solid" unit as even an empty space WILL suppress.
Not exactly true.
Ever hear of a "bloop tube" ?
Competition shooters I shoot against use hollow tubes as barrel extensions that have removable sights installed to get a longer sight radius.
Some are threaded 1/2x28tpi because the barrel is already threaded.
I wouldn't thread the front tho.

Reference
http://www.doublealpha.biz/olympic-shooting/starik-tube
07/SOT2

User avatar
Bendersquint
Industry Professional
Posts: 11359
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:19 pm
Location: North Carolina
Contact:

Re: Would this be a suppressor part?

Post by Bendersquint » Mon Jan 06, 2014 12:15 pm

WarbirdsCustomGuns wrote:
Bendersquint wrote: Can't be hollow on the inside either, has to be a sealed "solid" unit as even an empty space WILL suppress.
Not exactly true.
Ever hear of a "bloop tube" ?
Competition shooters I shoot against use hollow tubes as barrel extensions that have removable sights installed to get a longer sight radius.
Some are threaded 1/2x28tpi because the barrel is already threaded.
I wouldn't thread the front tho.

Reference
http://www.doublealpha.biz/olympic-shooting/starik-tube
We arent talking about a bloop tube either, and this design isnt a bloop tube. Please read the entire thread not just a single post then you will understand my comment.

User avatar
gunny50
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 784
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 7:11 am
Location: EU

Re: Would this be a suppressor part?

Post by gunny50 » Mon Jan 06, 2014 1:11 pm

[quote="Bendersquint"

We arent talking about a bloop tube either, and this design isnt a bloop tube. Please read the entire thread not just a single post then you will understand my comment.[/quote]

Well,

one could put a diffuser in the bloop tube...
That way one would strip the gas from the projectile and have the benefit of better accuracy and less noise pollution.
on second thought that would cost you a s tamp in the US.

Gunny

WarbirdsCustomGuns
Member
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2011 10:55 am
Contact:

Re: Would this be a suppressor part?

Post by WarbirdsCustomGuns » Mon Jan 06, 2014 1:27 pm

Bendersquint wrote:
We arent talking about a bloop tube either, and this design isnt a bloop tube. Please read the entire thread not just a single post then you will understand my comment.
Good lord man, what you just said is sooooo misleading & dis-information I don't know where to start.
Based on your statement the NFA could interpret bloop tubes as a silencer part.
Wanna help ???? You need to understand the fine line because you're not helping the cause.
I read the whole thread.
IT'S A BLOOP TUBE PLAIN & SIMPLE & his description & pic proves it.
Image



.
07/SOT2

User avatar
CMV
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 734
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 6:31 pm
Location: NC

Re: Would this be a suppressor part?

Post by CMV » Mon Jan 06, 2014 6:52 pm

But it goes over the barrel in front of the can, not after it. The bloop tube you're describing, the bullet passes thru it after exiting the barrel. On what I'm intending, the bullet is inside the [non-ported] barrel as it passes thru.

This is more like a barrel shroud between the suppressor and the gas block. No 'free' projectile or combustion gasses pass thru it.
--------------------------------------

"Sorry but you cannot use search at this time. Please try again in a few minutes"
"This board is currently disabled"
These things make me :(

WarbirdsCustomGuns
Member
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2011 10:55 am
Contact:

Re: Would this be a suppressor part?

Post by WarbirdsCustomGuns » Mon Jan 06, 2014 9:25 pm

CMV wrote:But it goes over the barrel in front of the can, not after it. The bloop tube you're describing, the bullet passes thru it after exiting the barrel. On what I'm intending, the bullet is inside the [non-ported] barrel as it passes thru.

This is more like a barrel shroud between the suppressor and the gas block. No 'free' projectile or combustion gasses pass thru it.
OK it's a barrel shroud, not a bloop tube but, my statement remains the same.

Another reference is 9mm AR's with free float tubes.
They are threaded on 1 end, not both but yet, they're not considered a silencer or silencer part.
NO GRAY AREA EITHER, as a certain person may try to imply.
The barrel nut holds the barrel to the receiver, not the free float tube.
We build those also.
With a 5" barrel installed the free float tube comes forward of the muzzle about 2-1/2".
It's hollow inside so does that make it a silencer part ?
NO IT DOESN'T, & never will be.
Does it reduce the sound from the round fired ?
Again no it doesn't.
I can gladly show the proof if needed.

Here's another fact for those bitten by the many deceptions given by a certain person.
In regards to the BATF & NFA, there is "NO SUCH THING AS A GRAY AREA".
Either it "IS" or it "ISN'T"...........AKA black or white.

A certain person posted that the new rules regarding "Trusts" was a done deal.
I made reference to that statement on 2 other forums.
Now I see that post has been deleted.
I'm not the only one who read that statement here.
Glad I saved a copy of that page before it was deleted just in case.
Lots of back tracking & post deletions have been made in the last 2 years I've been reading threads here.

People here need to dig up whatever brain cells they have left & see things as they really are.



.
07/SOT2

User avatar
Wicked
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 1438
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 3:15 am
Location: Dayton, OH
Contact:

Re: Would this be a suppressor part?

Post by Wicked » Mon Jan 06, 2014 11:33 pm

Word of the week: due diligence.

due dil·i·gence
Law
noun: due diligence

1. reasonable steps taken by a person in order to satisfy a legal requirement.



Asking your "Class 3" gun dealer, local law enforcement officer, brother who is an active duty Navy SEAL, or any unknown random internet 'firearms expert' who has no stake in your best interests, "Is XXX or YYY safe, sane and legal?" is probably not reasonable.

Please review definition 1. of our work of the week.
https://www.facebook.com/wickedweapons

User avatar
Armorer-at-Law
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 338
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 2:39 pm
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Contact:

Re: Would this be a suppressor part?

Post by Armorer-at-Law » Tue Jan 07, 2014 10:50 am

Another reference is 9mm AR's with free float tubes.
They are threaded on 1 end, not both but yet, they're not considered a silencer or silencer part.
What CMV is proposing is only threaded on one end -- the forward end. What makes it unusual (and, therefore, difficult to give a black or white answer) is that it is mounted on the silencer. To us, it's not a silencer part because it is not necessary for the silencer to function. But it's attached to the silencer, so we have legitimate concern for what ATF may say on any given day.
Send lawyers, guns, and money...
Armorer-at-Law.com
07FFL/02SOT

WarbirdsCustomGuns
Member
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2011 10:55 am
Contact:

Re: Would this be a suppressor part?

Post by WarbirdsCustomGuns » Tue Jan 07, 2014 11:33 pm

Armorer-at-Law wrote:
Another reference is 9mm AR's with free float tubes.
They are threaded on 1 end, not both but yet, they're not considered a silencer or silencer part.
What CMV is proposing is only threaded on one end -- the forward end. What makes it unusual (and, therefore, difficult to give a black or white answer) is that it is mounted on the silencer. To us, it's not a silencer part because it is not necessary for the silencer to function. But it's attached to the silencer, so we have legitimate concern for what ATF may say on any given day.
The issue of being a silencer part (or not), is the same as it is or was for recoil boosters & adapters on pistol silencers.
Different part but same issue.
The recoil booster issue was so beaten to death that everyone should be able to distinguish what is a silencer part & one that is not.
Whether it's a barrel shroud (of sorts), bloop tube (of sorts) or just a plain ole adapter or accessory should have been very clear to anyone.
In my opinion it's nothing more than just an adapter.




With that out of the way I'll get to other issues in this thread.
I'll list 3 subjects that need much attention.

1.
If you insult my intelligence on a public forum by saying "read the entire thread not just a single post then you will understand my comment",
You better bring some big guns with you but, this certain person failed to do that.
He uses that statement so much it should be his middle name.

If you want respect from others, you need to show some respect.
Big mistake on his part to insult me the way he did in this thread.
Maybe there's some personal issues that cloud what common sense he may or may not have.






2.
This certain person has a very bad & constant habit of back tracking on some comments he makes & deleting multiple posts 2-3 days after posting info. that in most cases is totally wrong.
I've seen it happen many times in the last 2 years & so have others.
I believe he does that so others can't quote him (JMHO).

This certain person also gives other folks here, answers to questions that only the NFA branch should giving but, he says he has a source inside NFA that provides info. to him not available to anyone else.
I have seen him post that statement many times & this alone should raise red flags to everyone here.
Does this person actually work for the NFA ?
Work for some other Gov't agency ?
Maybe just another person who pretends to know everything concerning NFA firearms.
I think that gives some clues as to why he back tracks on some statements & deletes so many of his posts a couple days later.
I can see some serious liabilty issues on his part if someone actually takes his advice verbatum & gets in serious trouble.
I've also seen that the majority of his business comes from this forum.






3.
I've been on the internet a very long time.
People know who & what I am.
I don't hide anything unless it involves my personal life.

People know some of my military history, about my training from Ft Benning armorers in Georgia & Elmer Ballance & my venture to where I am now in the public eye.
Also my accomplishments regarding the M-14 rifle, Bench Rest & long range rifles not to mention my experience in the firearms & NFA manufacturing business.

It seems that this certain person here is not so open about who & what he is & how he does his work.
He takes measures to hide himself & what he does.
He's unknown to anyone but, people here & a few in other places blindly trust such a person ?

I had an interesting phone conversation with this certain person in Nov, 2011.
Some things he said raised so many red flags I lost count.
Even suggested I send him work that I can easily do myself.

I don't do business with some unknown person from the internt.
If he chooses to not give the needed info. to make me comfortable enough trust him, I simply move on which I did.

So the question for folks here would be who is this unknown person who jumped out of nowhere ?
Do you know anything about him ?
Do you really know how & where he really does his work ?

I had these same questions & asked my own sources who found the info. I was looking for.
I was a little surprised but not shocked.
Bottom line is don't be fooled by someone who pretends to be something he isn't.
I'm less impressed about this person now than I was in 2011 & that's a serious understatement.

A note in closing.
People should be more concerned with world events than the little ole silencers.
A year or 2 down the road silencers will be the last thing on your mind but hey, what do I know.
Time will prove if I'm right or wrong about that.

I now return you to your regularly schedule program.
07/SOT2

User avatar
Capt. Link.
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 2517
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:05 pm
Location: USA.

Re: Would this be a suppressor part?

Post by Capt. Link. » Thu Jan 09, 2014 11:57 am

I tuned in to my regular program and found some bozo trashing a member in good standing.Professionally I know "B" very well and have done business with him and will again.You sir have no honor and contributed nothing to the conversation other than confusion to the facts.B has helped many of us interpret the laws as handed down by BATFE he has also kept us abreast of advances in the state of the art and provided top quality re-cores and repairs to suppressors.His Melonite service was much appreciated.With the many years I have been on this site I have never heard him once bad mouth another business as that would be UN-professional.I got news for you your free float tube can be a suppressor with one barrel port I don't need to modify the tube or add a end cap.If a single bloop tube was ever used in a crime they would be reclassified as suppressors because they meet the definition.Every comment on this thread was one of assurance to CMV that he was within the law less your words because you did not comprehend or did not read the thread. :idea:
The only reason after 243 years the government now wants to disarm you is they intend to do something you would shoot them for!

WarbirdsCustomGuns
Member
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2011 10:55 am
Contact:

Re: Would this be a suppressor part?

Post by WarbirdsCustomGuns » Thu Jan 09, 2014 2:42 pm

Capt. Link. wrote:I tuned in to my regular program and found some bozo trashing a member in good standing.Professionally I know "B" very well and have done business with him and will again.You sir have no honor and contributed nothing to the conversation other than confusion to the facts.B has helped many of us interpret the laws as handed down by BATFE he has also kept us abreast of advances in the state of the art and provided top quality re-cores and repairs to suppressors.
Wow you have some really bad choice of words there.
Soooooo you feel the need to resort to name calling like a 10 year old ??
I'm convinced that you either, just graduated from high scool last year or you're brain dead about how to act like an adult.
You should use what brain matter you've apparently been given, to make some informed decisions.

Interpret the laws as handed down by BATFE ?
Are you serious ?
Only BATF & NFA Branch can do that as our interpretations mean nothing.
Is he a designated mouth piece for NFA Branch ?
I don't think anyone here saw that memo.

BATF & NFA Branch constantly tells people "Don't believe what you read or hear on the internet, if you have questions just call or email us & we will help".





Capt. Link. wrote:His Melonite service was much appreciated.With the many years I have been on this site I have never heard him once bad mouth another business as that would be UN-professional.I got news for you your free float tube can be a suppressor with one barrel port I don't need to modify the tube or add a end cap.If a single bloop tube was ever used in a crime they would be reclassified as suppressors because they meet the definition.Every comment on this thread was one of assurance to CMV that he was within the law less your words because you did not comprehend or did not read the thread. :idea:
You have been proven wrong 1000's of times.
When he says a company makes a bad product or should improve their product line to perform better, he's bad mouthing & bashing them........that simple.
He has said it many times.

He got called out in this thread.
So far it's the only one that was not deleted by him.
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=72588&p=822684&hilit=Oss#p822684

He has been proven wrong many times & he deletes some of his posts to cover up & not get quoted.
Anyone who has any credibility will be forth coming about themselves & provide some history, not hide behind some internet user name.
Questions still remain, who & what is he ?
BTW, who are you, besides some person hiding behind an internet user name & resorting to name calling like a 10 year old ?
So many questions but, no answers of any kind.
Lots of people in the NFA world have the same questions.

Nobody said anything about barrel ports but, good try on your part to deflect from what was actually said.


I'll also post his comment here regarding the new Trust rules.
You won't find it now because he deleted it like so many of his other posts when he was proven to be wrong.
So much for interpreting the laws as handed down by BATFE huh ?
Bendersquint wrote:The new trust rules are a done deal. Cleo sign off will be required for all trustees and responsible persons.


.
07/SOT2

User avatar
MCKNBRD
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 356
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2011 9:19 pm

Re: Would this be a suppressor part?

Post by MCKNBRD » Thu Jan 09, 2014 4:44 pm

I've hesitated posting before, but it just needs to be said: B at least comes on here and helps folks with design questions, as well as helping toe the line regarding his experience with BATFE policies, procedures, and what he's seen.

All you've done, WCG, is s--t on what he says. Like many in the shooting sports, you both have your opinions. His are based on his business experience; since you've not established yourself as anything but a seagull here (flying around, squawking a lot, and shitting all over everything), he tends to have more credence. Also, in the case of CMV's thread here, YOU.ARE.WRONG. This is NOT a bloop tube, this is NOT a handguard, its a hollow tube that could be screwed on the BACK of a mounted suppressor. I think pretty much everyone here understands that, except for you.

Regarding B's 'errors'...yep. He makes them. We all do. He chooses to delete what he knows of as an error, you seem to ASSume that you have some moral high ground since you apparently haven't deleted any of your whopping 32 posts. Any time you try to answer folks questions (as in the OSS thread you dredged up from over a year ago, where they didn't respond for 2 years...I mean, really, a 3 year old thread? WTF?) or about the ATF's ever-changing position on Trusts, you're going to mess up.

If you EVER tried to help anyone here, you'd mess up, too.

Personally, B has helped me on more than a few things; one being the passage of laws in NC allowing suppressors to be used for hunting, where I testified before the Senate committee where a bill was brought forward to legalize them. He's looked at some of my sketches and provided guidance on where they can be 'tweaked' to work better, as well as MANY other Form 1 NFA enthusiasts. Best of all, he offers services that few others do, and does a DAMN good job at jailbreaking cans. His opinions on can quality and construction are based on what he sees from his customers, and the cans they send him.

I don't know if you just woke up on the wrong side of the bed one morning, saw CMV's post, misinterpreted it, and have too big of an ego to back up and say 'whoops! I read THAT one wrong!' or what, but, unless you are going to start contributing here, I'd recommend that you STFU, put down the coffee, back away from the keyboard, and get to work on your customer's guns instead of coming across like a pissed off 7th grade girl.

2 pennies.
Byrdman

User avatar
Armorer-at-Law
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 338
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 2:39 pm
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Contact:

Re: Would this be a suppressor part?

Post by Armorer-at-Law » Thu Jan 09, 2014 5:17 pm

CMV, I wish we had a more definitive answer for you among all the noise in this thread. You've presented an interesting design and question. Other than cosmetic, I'm not sure what the suppressor-mounted barrel shroud would provide that couldn't be accomplished with a different fore end and an off-the-shelf suppressor. If you built it with a suppressor on a Form 1, then it really doesn't matter if it is a suppressor part or not. If you are contemplating modifying a suppressor (by threading its OD at the aft end), . . . If you made an insulating wrap for a can and it extended rearward beyond the mounting end of the can, I don't think anyone would say that was a suppressor part. Now if that insulating wrap were made of rigid material, it really shouldn't change the answer. But that's not the point. Logically, it would not be a "suppressor part." Applying logic to the law, it should not be a "suppressor part." But logic is not necessarily the end of the analysis in this area. It is very likely that what you propose would be determined to NOT be a suppressor part if the BATFE were asked, but I can't say that with absolute certainty (and this is not legal advice).

Thanks for raising the question.
Send lawyers, guns, and money...
Armorer-at-Law.com
07FFL/02SOT

Post Reply