Wood Baffle Parts Making Need To Be A SOT?

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

Post Reply
Historian
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 3227
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2010 11:37 pm

Wood Baffle Parts Making Need To Be A SOT?

Post by Historian » Mon Sep 26, 2016 10:16 am

<< https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XO572xNQ6x4 >>

Carpenter friend at range asked if wood baffles would
require a stamp. He got a 'woody' chuckling at
advocates for suppressors. :) :)

It did raise the question if making a wood mock-up
of a suppressor requires a stamp.

When will the HPA pass?

Need a new President friendly to NRA to push.

0101silent
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 173
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:09 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Wood Baffle Parts Making Need To Be A SOT?

Post by 0101silent » Mon Sep 26, 2016 11:15 am

--
Last edited by 0101silent on Thu Oct 12, 2017 11:11 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
fishman
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 1398
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2015 9:15 pm

Re: Wood Baffle Parts Making Need To Be A SOT?

Post by fishman » Mon Sep 26, 2016 11:30 am

I made... I mean, I know I guy that made a 3D printed plastic silencer model. It is a one piece cross sectional model that couldn't possibly in any way be used to reduce the report of a firearm. A wood cross sectional silencer model would probably be fine.
300 blackout form 1: http://www.silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=137293

5.56 form 1:
http://www.silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=141800&p=955647#p955647

Historian
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 3227
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2010 11:37 pm

Re: Wood Baffle Parts Making Need To Be A SOT?

Post by Historian » Mon Sep 26, 2016 1:59 pm

0101silent wrote:A wooden suppressor wood :D probably function as a real suppressor.

A Paper Mache model of a suppressor might be ok. I doubt that a paper mache model would reduce the report of a gunshot.

An artist such as the man in the video could make model baffles out of foam and then cast them using the lost foam method when his paperwork is in order.

Bravo, Sir!

A man with a KNOTTY sense of humor is OAK-A with me. :) :)

User avatar
whiterussian1974
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 2712
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:37 am
Location: On 8th line of eye chart.

Re: Wood Baffle Parts Making Need To Be A SOT?

Post by whiterussian1974 » Mon Sep 26, 2016 2:02 pm

This Topic was previously discussed.

LavaRed made a wooden suppressor for 9mm IIRC and it worked well. (Used in Guatemala so no NFA violations.) She used a flame to "cure" the wood to remove water and char the surface w carbon powder.

I imagine that some forms of wax on the outside would also help protect the wood. Maybe Li soap the blast chamber to quench the flame and absorb initial blast?

The end Finding was that someone complying w NFA would need to cut the "mockup display" in 1/2 to prevent potential usage. Even paper mache would be unlawful if complete. Even though it would probably INCREASE the sound, it fits the Definition that ATF uses. So sectioned parts are the best way to avoid problems.

Of course, there's nothing saying that someone can't insert wooden baffles into a serialized tube. ;)
---
You fellas need to quit being such Saps. :mrgreen:
---
The links are now dead, but here is one of the Threads.
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=38184
The Darkest Corners of Hell are reserved for those who remain Neutral!-Dante
The Death of One is a Tragedy, a million only a statistic.-Stalin
Well I AM 1/16 Demon on my Father's Side!-Dresden Files

Historian
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 3227
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2010 11:37 pm

Re: Wood Baffle Parts Making Need To Be A SOT?

Post by Historian » Mon Sep 26, 2016 6:41 pm

WR, you are the greatest! LOL!

"" You fellas need to quit being such Saps. :mrgreen: "

You are forcing me to go out on a LIMB
but a ROOTeen check
on GOOGLE will find those who try to PALM
off stinky puns will be attacked by Samurai yelling
BONSAI!

Best, WR my friend.

User avatar
T-Rex
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 1758
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2014 4:38 pm
Location: CT - The AntiConstitution State

Re: Wood Baffle Parts Making Need To Be A SOT?

Post by T-Rex » Tue Sep 27, 2016 7:28 am

Bender has commented, several times, that cutaways are still silencers.
As stupid as it sounds, each half is considered a "silencer part" and would need to be registered.

I wonder how the tone would be affected if the baffles were made of wood.
Completed Builds www.silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=79895
Burst Calculator www.engineersedge.com/calculators/pipe_bust_calc.htm
Silencer Porn www.instagram.com/explore/tags/silencerporn/

User avatar
whiterussian1974
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 2712
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:37 am
Location: On 8th line of eye chart.

Re: Wood Baffle Parts Making Need To Be A SOT?

Post by whiterussian1974 » Tue Sep 27, 2016 2:39 pm

T-Rex wrote:Bender has commented, several times, that cutaways are still silencers.
Cut slits in the sides (like an Omega) and no longer serviceable as a "part." (W/o substantial modification. Just like flat washers.)
T-Rex wrote:I wonder how the tone would be affected if the baffles were made of wood.
LavaRed says that it deepens and dampens the Tone.
Which makes since. Each section becomes a Resonance Chamber w it's own pitch (frequency Band.) So what passes through 1, is cancelled into heat or sub-audible vibration by the others. It acts as a series of Frequency Filters.

The Xylem also work as Cilia to absorb rather than reflect the noise.
The Darkest Corners of Hell are reserved for those who remain Neutral!-Dante
The Death of One is a Tragedy, a million only a statistic.-Stalin
Well I AM 1/16 Demon on my Father's Side!-Dresden Files

alordnapa
Senior Silent Operator
Posts: 116
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 12:01 pm

Re: Wood Baffle Parts Making Need To Be A SOT?

Post by alordnapa » Wed Sep 28, 2016 12:06 pm

I would be concerned that a wooden suppressor might have excessive bark...I wish this was a Free Country! I think the idea of a functioning, Paper mache, suppressor contest would be more fun than a Flugtag, and would produce only biodegradable waste...

quietoldfart
Senior Silent Operator
Posts: 104
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 4:28 pm
Location: France

Re: Wood Baffle Parts Making Need To Be A SOT?

Post by quietoldfart » Wed Sep 28, 2016 9:01 pm

I did try a simple wood cone suppressor on a .22lr pistol. Air between front and rear caps was about 4.5" x 1.375". Much-drilled aluminum tubular spacers separating three cones carved from lignum vitae, a very dense and waxy hardwood. Each cone had a scoop milled into one edge. Angles of the cones varied from about 45° to 60°. The result provided more than double the air volume of a 4" x 1" OD K baffle suppressor which delivered surprisingly quiet results using three long K baffles and a urethane wipe. The wooden cone suppressor hurt my ears too much after one shot with CCI SV for me to bother testing a second shot. It sounded almost unsuppressed. I considered trying again but with large wooden K baffles... but felt that it would likely be a waste of time, as the cones were such a complete failure.

Historian
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 3227
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2010 11:37 pm

Re: Wood Baffle Parts Making Need To Be A SOT?

Post by Historian » Thu Sep 29, 2016 7:53 am

Informative that some have actually tried using wood
in can construction. Reminiscent of a century (?)
ago indigenous folks in Asia using bamboo wrapped
in wire to make mortars. Bet splinters were a devil
to remove.

In a moment of jocularity some of us once pondered if
the can of stacked sugar donuts close by could fall under the
umbrella of 'silencer parts' as it was sitting on table next
to a match - it did not have a serial number on it or stamp.

Hmm. Could chocolate donut holes placed in a can be considered wipes?
Who would be so daring to even have tried that. Most likely some miscreant who
as a defiant child sneakily tore off
"Do Not Tear Off Under Penalty of Law" labels from under chairs, I bet. :) :)

Historian
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 3227
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2010 11:37 pm

Re: Wood Baffle Parts Making Need To Be A SOT?

Post by Historian » Thu Sep 29, 2016 8:05 am

alordnapa wrote:I would be concerned that a wooden suppressor might have excessive bark...I wish this was a Free Country! I think the idea of a functioning, Paper mache, suppressor contest would be more fun than a Flugtag, and would produce only biodegradable waste...
Excellent, sir! LOL

Reminiscent of the John Birch Society in Belmont MA long ago who
were wrongly considered a SPLINTER Group.

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

Re: Wood Baffle Parts Making Need To Be A SOT?

Post by Bendersquint » Wed Oct 05, 2016 9:51 pm

whiterussian1974 wrote:
T-Rex wrote:Bender has commented, several times, that cutaways are still silencers.
Cut slits in the sides (like an Omega) and no longer serviceable as a "part." (W/o substantial modification. Just like flat washers.)
T-Rex wrote:I wonder how the tone would be affected if the baffles were made of wood.
LavaRed says that it deepens and dampens the Tone.
Which makes since. Each section becomes a Resonance Chamber w it's own pitch (frequency Band.) So what passes through 1, is cancelled into heat or sub-audible vibration by the others. It acts as a series of Frequency Filters.

The Xylem also work as Cilia to absorb rather than reflect the noise.
Cutaway silencers even if they are non functional are still classified as silencer. As far as the ATF is concerned they are just really poor performing silencers.

User avatar
mr fixit
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 431
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 12:09 pm
Location: N.E. Texas

Re: Wood Baffle Parts Making Need To Be A SOT?

Post by mr fixit » Mon Oct 10, 2016 10:45 am

Bendersquint wrote:
Cutaway silencers even if they are non functional are still classified as silencer. As far as the ATF is concerned they are just really poor performing silencers.
Curious, asking a serious question;

If I had a stamp to make a F1 suppressor, and after making the suppressor decided to cut in in half to look at the inside, would I still be covered under the original stamp? Or would I now need an additional stamp for the other half?

User avatar
whiterussian1974
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 2712
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:37 am
Location: On 8th line of eye chart.

Re: Wood Baffle Parts Making Need To Be A SOT?

Post by whiterussian1974 » Mon Oct 10, 2016 12:03 pm

mr fixit wrote:
Bendersquint wrote:
Cutaway silencers even if they are non functional are still classified as silencer. As far as the ATF is concerned they are just really poor performing silencers.
If I had a stamp to make a F1 suppressor, and after making the suppressor decided to cut in in half to look at the inside, would I still be covered under the original stamp? Or would I now need an additional stamp for the other half?
A 2nd Stamp and serial on the 2nd tube half. Plus the parts would need to be fixed and non-removable.

I would argue that you could make the device inoperable. Don't bore an exit in the endcap. Fix something obstructing the bore, etc.

Bender is correct that if you can push the 2 halves together, then each is now a silencer part. But if it is unusable, then they are no more "parts" than a coke bottle, potato, block of rubber, etc. Unless the part is usable non-modified, it isn't a part. It's stock that can be MADE into a part.

But I'm no ATF Attorney. So take my Opinion w a few grains of salt. I'm offering no Advice, just Opinion and Reasoned Reflection.
The Darkest Corners of Hell are reserved for those who remain Neutral!-Dante
The Death of One is a Tragedy, a million only a statistic.-Stalin
Well I AM 1/16 Demon on my Father's Side!-Dresden Files

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

Re: Wood Baffle Parts Making Need To Be A SOT?

Post by Bendersquint » Mon Oct 10, 2016 1:17 pm

mr fixit wrote:
Bendersquint wrote:
Cutaway silencers even if they are non functional are still classified as silencer. As far as the ATF is concerned they are just really poor performing silencers.
Curious, asking a serious question;

If I had a stamp to make a F1 suppressor, and after making the suppressor decided to cut in in half to look at the inside, would I still be covered under the original stamp? Or would I now need an additional stamp for the other half?

You would be fine as both halves are still there and you could show that both halves made 1 can. Dont cut through the serial though.

If you want to live on the wild side you could even have an SOT reweld it at a later point if you wanted to to play some more.
Last edited by Bendersquint on Mon Oct 10, 2016 1:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Wood Baffle Parts Making Need To Be A SOT?

Post by Bendersquint » Mon Oct 10, 2016 1:23 pm

whiterussian1974 wrote:
mr fixit wrote:
Bendersquint wrote:
Cutaway silencers even if they are non functional are still classified as silencer. As far as the ATF is concerned they are just really poor performing silencers.
If I had a stamp to make a F1 suppressor, and after making the suppressor decided to cut in in half to look at the inside, would I still be covered under the original stamp? Or would I now need an additional stamp for the other half?
A 2nd Stamp and serial on the 2nd tube half. Plus the parts would need to be fixed and non-removable.

I would argue that you could make the device inoperable. Don't bore an exit in the endcap. Fix something obstructing the bore, etc.

Bender is correct that if you can push the 2 halves together, then each is now a silencer part. But if it is unusable, then they are no more "parts" than a coke bottle, potato, block of rubber, etc. Unless the part is usable non-modified, it isn't a part. It's stock that can be MADE into a part.

But I'm no ATF Attorney. So take my Opinion w a few grains of salt. I'm offering no Advice, just Opinion and Reasoned Reflection.
Why would the cut in half baffles not be able to be removable? Spectre, Multimount, Octane, Dagger, Mite, Element etc.....all those are removable.

ATF has no requirement that a can be able to be mounted to classify it as a silencer. Just means its a bad design. Once a silencer always a silencer, the only way to destroy it and remove from the registry is to squish it, then its just scrap metal.

alordnapa
Senior Silent Operator
Posts: 116
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 12:01 pm

Re: Wood Baffle Parts Making Need To Be A SOT?

Post by alordnapa » Mon Oct 10, 2016 6:09 pm

Have I constructively manufactured a suppressor" if I am in possession of say, a Russet Potato and a gun ( I know many hate the term, but I use it to distinguish a boom-stick, gat, weapon, roscoe, etc. from a suppressor which is also a "firearm", depending on your jurisdiction's definition, so please don't make me march back and fourth at repeating a holy mantra distinguishing "rifle" from my "gun" until I fall dead) How about a diet coke can, a roll of duct tape, and a 600 Nitro Express Double rifle? Is a 29 inch barrel on my10-22 a suppressor because it make Colibri ammo quieter than a 16 inch barrel? The answer is easy! Whichever one BATFE says it is. At that time, on that day, in that Court. I think if you made it as far as a jury trial with your 4 foot-long, cross sectioned, suppressor model, you might find someone with a little common sense ( Maybe, few rocket scientists make it onto Juries) but you would probably have to go broke to find out.

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

Re: Wood Baffle Parts Making Need To Be A SOT?

Post by Bendersquint » Mon Oct 10, 2016 6:25 pm

alordnapa wrote:Have I constructively manufactured a suppressor" if I am in possession of say, a Russet Potato and a gun ( I know many hate the term, but I use it to distinguish a boom-stick, gat, weapon, roscoe, etc. from a suppressor which is also a "firearm", depending on your jurisdiction's definition, so please don't make me march back and fourth at repeating a holy mantra distinguishing "rifle" from my "gun" until I fall dead) How about a diet coke can, a roll of duct tape, and a 600 Nitro Express Double rifle? Is a 29 inch barrel on my10-22 a suppressor because it make Colibri ammo quieter than a 16 inch barrel? The answer is easy! Whichever one BATFE says it is. At that time, on that day, in that Court. I think if you made it as far as a jury trial with your 4 foot-long, cross sectioned, suppressor model, you might find someone with a little common sense ( Maybe, few rocket scientists make it onto Juries) but you would probably have to go broke to find out.
If you are relying on a juries interpretation of that should be your first inkling that its probably not kosher.

Black or White, there is no grey(regardless of what some people think).

User avatar
whiterussian1974
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 2712
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:37 am
Location: On 8th line of eye chart.

Re: Wood Baffle Parts Making Need To Be A SOT?

Post by whiterussian1974 » Mon Oct 10, 2016 11:57 pm

Bendersquint wrote:
whiterussian1974 wrote:But I'm no ATF Attorney. So take my Opinion w a few grains of salt. I'm offering no Advice, just Opinion and Reasoned Reflection.
Why would the cut in half baffles not be able to be removable? Spectre, Multimount, Octane, Dagger, Mite, Element etc.....all those are removable.

ATF has no requirement that a can be able to be mounted to classify it as a silencer. Just means its a bad design. Once a silencer always a silencer, the only way to destroy it and remove from the registry is to squish it, then its just scrap metal.
B/c once cut open, they are now each silencer parts needing serialization if they aren't contained as 1 unit.
I was guessing based upon previous posts that you and others have made. You are the best Authority on ATF/NFA law here. You are definitely the Go-to Guy for Legal ?s.

Hence, my Disclaimer. But you have repeatedly proven to be exceptionally well read on these Laws. So you are often the Definitive Answer. The rest of us can only posit Interpretations based upon our Experience.

Just as it's not possible to make extra baffles, I imagined that if they are separated (not contained) then they aren't considered a Single Unit. They become serialized parts. Not only 1 unit.

BTW: if the suppressor is scrapped, would that need to be documented? Otherwise ATF could claim that it wasn't in our Possession, and thus didn't meet "Secured Possession" requirements. :?:
---
ETA: Perhaps if all part are contained in 1 box and able to be assembled, then they meet the Single Unit requirement?

I was tired/confused (up all night after covering a 2nd shift) during my earlier post. I thought of possibility of parts being scattered. That was my mistaken and unfounded Presumption. My apologies for any confusion that I caused anyone. :( :oops:
The Darkest Corners of Hell are reserved for those who remain Neutral!-Dante
The Death of One is a Tragedy, a million only a statistic.-Stalin
Well I AM 1/16 Demon on my Father's Side!-Dresden Files

User avatar
whiterussian1974
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 2712
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:37 am
Location: On 8th line of eye chart.

Re: Wood Baffle Parts Making Need To Be A SOT?

Post by whiterussian1974 » Tue Oct 11, 2016 12:21 am

Bendersquint wrote:
alordnapa wrote:Have I constructively manufactured a suppressor" if I am in possession of say, a Russet Potato and a gun...
How about a diet coke can, a roll of duct tape, and a 600 Nitro Express Double rifle? Is a 29 inch barrel on my10-22 a suppressor because it make Colibri ammo quieter than a 16 inch barrel? The answer is easy! Whichever one BATFE says it is. At that time, on that day, in that Court. I think if you made it as far as a jury trial with your 4 foot-long, cross sectioned, suppressor model, you might find someone with a little common sense ( Maybe, few rocket scientists make it onto Juries) but you would probably have to go broke to find out.
If you are relying on a juries interpretation of that should be your first inkling that its probably not kosher.

Black or White, there is no grey(regardless of what some people think).
Bender is right on Count 1, mistaken on Count 2. Reasonable Doubt and Jury Nullification can cause Grey. So can Hung Juries. (Not Guilty verdict isn't an Innocent Ruling. Just "you got away w it for now." "But we'll get you later, you Dirty Schmuck!)

In Law, there is rarely White. Only levels of Civil/Criminal Culpability. We are ALL treated as Crown Subjects, and Criminals alluding/escaping Justice. Even Victims are considered Guilty. Contributory Negligence, Secondary Liability, etc.
---
If you have a coke bottle, duct tape and rifle all in arms length, WE would arrest for Constructive Possession. (Unless you have a serialized metal strip embedded in the bottle and a Form1 describing the assembled Unit.) ;)

29inch barrel w reduced loads are OK. The barrel is registered. The ammo is Lawful. Unless you commit Act of Misuse, you are Clear.

At Trial, your Lawyer would need the Balls to give Nullification Theory speech. The Judge may hold him in Contempt though. Many Lawyers are Ball-less and refuse to present Vigorous Defense. Just remember that.

You should act as Primary Counsel of Record. Have the Lawyer as a 2nd Seat Research and Protocol assistant. NOT, NOT, NOT your Attorney of Record!

You are also correct about ATF Rulings. Admin Law Hearings SUCK!!! You need a Jury Trial to stand any chance! :!: :idea: :shock: 8)
===
In Summary, only the Crown/State is "white." We Serfs are simply shades of Grey. :( :evil:
The Darkest Corners of Hell are reserved for those who remain Neutral!-Dante
The Death of One is a Tragedy, a million only a statistic.-Stalin
Well I AM 1/16 Demon on my Father's Side!-Dresden Files

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

Re: Wood Baffle Parts Making Need To Be A SOT?

Post by Bendersquint » Tue Oct 11, 2016 12:44 pm

whiterussian1974 wrote:B/c once cut open, they are now each silencer parts needing serialization if they aren't contained as 1 unit.
I was guessing based upon previous posts that you and others have made. You are the best Authority on ATF/NFA law here. You are definitely the Go-to Guy for Legal ?s.

Hence, my Disclaimer. But you have repeatedly proven to be exceptionally well read on these Laws. So you are often the Definitive Answer. The rest of us can only posit Interpretations based upon our Experience.

Just as it's not possible to make extra baffles, I imagined that if they are separated (not contained) then they aren't considered a Single Unit. They become serialized parts. Not only 1 unit.

BTW: if the suppressor is scrapped, would that need to be documented? Otherwise ATF could claim that it wasn't in our Possession, and thus didn't meet "Secured Possession" requirements. :?:
---
ETA: Perhaps if all part are contained in 1 box and able to be assembled, then they meet the Single Unit requirement?

I was tired/confused (up all night after covering a 2nd shift) during my earlier post. I thought of possibility of parts being scattered. That was my mistaken and unfounded Presumption. My apologies for any confusion that I caused anyone. :( :oops:
Incorrect, it is still one silencer or unit(as you called it), its only cut in half. This is why you can't just cut a silencer in half to "destroy" it.

A car cut in half is still just 1 car, just in 2 pieces.

Yes, if it is scrapped you need to notify the ATF that it has been completely destroyed, if you don't you are still responsible for it and if they want to see it and you can produce it then you lost it or gave it away.

Post Reply