Nielson Device for Form 1 compliance

[plodder]

I realize that this has probably been asked & answered a dozen times or more on this forum, but I have searched and not found it specifically addressed:

If I build a Form 1 silencer for my .45 acp 1911 and include a Nielson Device that is threaded into the tube of the silencer, could I legally have a non-Nielson Device threaded endcap on hand to install when I would want to use the silencer without the Nielson Device?

[fishman]

The Nielsen device isn't a silencer part, it's an adapter. If you unscrew your Nielsen device and replace it with another thread adapter (an endcap) youre still in the clear

[crazyelece]

If the LID is also an endcap, then yes it is part of the silencer, and then no you would not be able to replace it with a standard threaded endcap.

If the LID threads into an endcap, then no it is not part of the silencer, and then yes you could also use a thread adapter for a direct thread option.

Depending on the LID's design, if it was also an endcap, you could likely make a fixed spacer to drop in to effectively negate the booster effect and turn it into a direct thread as well.

[plodder]

If the LID is also an endcap, then yes it is part of the silencer, and then no you would not be able to replace it with a standard threaded endcap.

If the LID threads into an endcap, then no it is not part of the silencer, and then yes you could also use a thread adapter for a direct thread option.

Depending on the LID's design, if it was also an endcap, you could likely make a fixed spacer to drop in to effectively negate the booster effect and turn it into a direct thread as well.

My current plan was to have the LID serve as the rear endcap, threaded into the tube.. So if I were to remove the spring from the LID & replace it with a rigid spacer for the times I want no LID (Nielson Device), it seems that I will be in compliance, correct?

[fishman]

If the LID is also an endcap, then yes it is part of the silencer, and then no you would not be able to replace it with a standard threaded endcap.

If the LID threads into an endcap, then no it is not part of the silencer, and then yes you could also use a thread adapter for a direct thread option.

Depending on the LID's design, if it was also an endcap, you could likely make a fixed spacer to drop in to effectively negate the booster effect and turn it into a direct thread as well.

My current plan was to have the LID serve as the rear endcap, threaded into the tube.. So if I were to remove the spring from the LID & replace it with a rigid spacer for the times I want no LID (Nielson Device), it seems that I will be in compliance, correct?

Correct

[crazyelece]

If the LID is also an endcap, then yes it is part of the silencer, and then no you would not be able to replace it with a standard threaded endcap.

If the LID threads into an endcap, then no it is not part of the silencer, and then yes you could also use a thread adapter for a direct thread option.

Depending on the LID's design, if it was also an endcap, you could likely make a fixed spacer to drop in to effectively negate the booster effect and turn it into a direct thread as well.

My current plan was to have the LID serve as the rear endcap, threaded into the tube.. So if I were to remove the spring from the LID & replace it with a rigid spacer for the times I want no LID (Nielson Device), it seems that I will be in compliance, correct?

Correct

+1 yes

[Nigel_Wesley]

I'm new and I can't find any information regarding my question so I'll ask you guys as it's Neilson device related: would a form 1 can strictly for 22lr need a Neilson device or LID? Host weapon would be a ruger charger pistol or the ruger 22/45.

Not trying to hijack this thread, I just didn't know if I should start a thread about it or just ask.


Happy shooting!

[fishman]

I'm new and I can't find any information regarding my question so I'll ask you guys as it's Neilson device related: would a form 1 can strictly for 22lr need a Neilson device or LID? Host weapon would be a ruger charger pistol or the ruger 22/45.

Not trying to hijack this thread, I just didn't know if I should start a thread about it or just ask.


Happy shooting!

A ruger 22/45 does not need an LID. I don't know what a charger is.

[AlabamaPaul]

I'm new and I can't find any information regarding my question so I'll ask you guys as it's Neilson device related: would a form 1 can strictly for 22lr need a Neilson device or LID? Host weapon would be a ruger charger pistol or the ruger 22/45.

Not trying to hijack this thread, I just didn't know if I should start a thread about it or just ask.


Happy shooting!

No, not needed for 22lr.

[Nigel_Wesley]

Thank you Fishman and AlabamaPaul!

Fishman- the charger is basically a 10/22 rifle cut down to 10 inches and has a pistol grip and no buttstock. I didn't think it would need the Neilson device as it's a fixed barrel but I figured I should ask those who know more than I do.


When I get approval and can make my can I will be sure to post pictures and give you guys a full report.

Until then happy shooting!

[ashman40]

If the LID is also an endcap, then yes it is part of the silencer, and then no you would not be able to replace it with a standard threaded endcap.

Just for my own understanding... the challenge of having swappable adapters between the muzzle and the silencer is whether the part being removed is considered a part of the silencer, or not. Right? The Definition of silencer states the parts designed for the silencer are also considered a silencer. So separating the required end cap from the silencer tube makes it a second silencer, which is not covered by your form 1.

For the purposes of the National Firearms Act the term Silencer is defined in 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.

Hypothetically... If my form 1 silencer was built with a circlip or inner threaded ring for the purpose of holding the internals of the tube in place, such that when I removed the thread adapter the tube and all the internals remained in place. So the thing screwed between the rifle end of the silencer tube would be an "adapter" and not part of the silencer? It could be removed and replaced with any number of other adapters of different ID size threading and an OD sized to fit the tube. The booster would be one type of adapter (B-tube) while a 5/8"-24 threaded adapter would be another. Does this sound reasonable?

Do you suppose it would help the argument if you also had a separate solvent trap that used the same thread adapters. This would clearly show the adapters were NOT "only for use in" the silencer?

[crazyelece]

Technically, if your form1 silencer uses a LID that you build, it could be considered a silencer part.

The reason that aftermarket "adapters" are not silencer parts is because the ATF has said they are NOT silencer parts and therefore the manufacturers are allowed to sell them.

Manufacturers have a process available to them to determine if something they produce falls under the purview of the NFA, the non-licensed do NOT.

I remember when "adapters" were first coming out, the discussions about how they "got away with it" was in very large part to the fact that the adapter threaded into an endcap and not directly to a tube.

The only way to know for sure if your design is or isn't under the purview of the NFA, is to hire a licensed manufacturer to build and submit a sample to tech branch and get a decision

[fishman]

If the LID is also an endcap, then yes it is part of the silencer, and then no you would not be able to replace it with a standard threaded endcap.

Just for my own understanding... the challenge of having swappable adapters between the muzzle and the silencer is whether the part being removed is considered a part of the silencer, or not. Right? The Definition of silencer states the parts designed for the silencer are also considered a silencer. So separating the required end cap from the silencer tube makes it a second silencer, which is not covered by your form 1.

For the purposes of the National Firearms Act the term Silencer is defined in 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.

Hypothetically... If my form 1 silencer was built with a circlip or inner threaded ring for the purpose of holding the internals of the tube in place, such that when I removed the thread adapter the tube and all the internals remained in place. So the thing screwed between the rifle end of the silencer tube would be an "adapter" and not part of the silencer? It could be removed and replaced with any number of other adapters of different ID size threading and an OD sized to fit the tube. The booster would be one type of adapter (B-tube) while a 5/8"-24 threaded adapter would be another. Does this sound reasonable?

Do you suppose it would help the argument if you also had a separate solvent trap that used the same thread adapters. This would clearly show the adapters were NOT "only for use in" the silencer?

I before you are correct