Beretta CX-4 and 922(r), sporting rifles, etc. I need ideas!

[DMY]

I'm considering a suppressor for the Beretta CX4 carbine. What I want to do is have the barrel cut down and permanently attach a "muzzle brake" or "flash hider" similar to the Sig design that is under review. You know, the one where the gun comes with a permanently attached mono baffle stack that is actually a muzzle brake... until you get a stamp for the tube, then you have a suppressor. If the gun still handles well, I feel like it, etc, I can decide whether or not use my stamp and make the tube/suppressor.

Here's the Sig "brake."


For the record I want to see how things pan out with Sig. I think Sig will win but I'll still wait and make sure before I start the build.

Here's the gun BTW:



Here's the problem. The CX4 is built entirely from foreign parts and considered a "sporting" rifle for importation purposes. Adding enough US made parts is not an option here. I am afraid that if I 1) thread the barrel, 2) permanently install a muzzle brake, or 3) permanently install a flash hider, I will be violating 922(r). Is this true? Can't a sporting rifle have either of these three things? This says to write the ATF and ask... don't really want to do that. http://thegunwiki.com/Gunwiki/LegalFederal922rFeatures What is the current status of the law here?

922(r) says "assemble from imported parts." The rifle is already assembled. I am just adding a flash hider. Knowing the ATF, adding a flash hider is still assembling, right?

What I'm really looking for is a legal way to permanently attach a muzzle brake or flash hider to the barrel of the gun.

Help me figure out a way to get this done! This might mean thinking outside the box or walking a fine line like Sig!

This is the best idea I have so far: A flash suppressor is on the list but I don't see muzzle brake. Would I be able to attach a mono-stack muzzle brake that is not also a flash hider? The whole idea is to leave the door open for a suppressor if I want to go that route down the road. I'm afraid that muzzle brake design like Sig uses (above) might also act as a flash suppressor.

Any help would be greatly appreciated. I know there are guys here that know a lot more than I do so I'm putting it out for constructive discussion!



For reference, here's the law as I understand it:

18 USC 922(r) says I can't assemble from foreign parts any rifle set forth in USC 925(d)(3). The rifle must be "particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922

18 USC 925(d)(3) says that I need to see the tax code. That kind of threw me for a loop. A little googling pointed me towards 27 CFR 478.39 which references 925(d)(3).
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/925

27 CFR 478.39 discusses banned guns/parts:

§ 478.39 Assembly of semiautomatic rifles or shotguns.

(a) No person shall assemble a semiautomatic rifle or any shotgun using more than 10 of the imported parts listed in paragraph (c) of this section if the assembled firearm is prohibited from importation under section 925(d)(3) as not being particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes.
...
(c) For purposes of this section, the term imported parts are:
(1) Frames, receivers, receiver castings, forgings or stampings
(2) Barrels
(3) Barrel extensions
(4) Mounting blocks (trunions)
(5) Muzzle attachments
(6) Bolts
(7) Bolt carriers
(8) Operating rods
(9) Gas pistons
(10) Trigger housings
(11) Triggers
(12) Hammers
(13) Sears
(14) Disconnectors
(15) Buttstocks
(16) Pistol grips
(17) Forearms, handguards
(18) Magazine bodies
(19) Followers
(20) Floorplates

http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/27/478.39

[Bendersquint]

Adding enough 922R parts IS an option unless you are just cheap.

They are out there, just not too cheap.

Also if Sig gets the blessing then thats great, it will set a precedence for the INDUSTRY not individuals. Individuals would have to get the individual blessing from the FTB.

The industry gets blessings to do alot of things that individuals would not get when they asked.

[DMY]

It's not that I'm cheap, I just don't think it's money well spent on that platform. Kind of like those $4,000 chrome wheels I put on my ratty '86 Skylark. Ops!

Adding enough 922R parts IS an option unless you are just cheap.

They are out there, just not too cheap.

I did not know this. Can you give me some examples similar to the Sig brake?

Also if Sig gets the blessing then thats great, it will set a precedence for the INDUSTRY not individuals. Individuals would have to get the individual blessing from the FTB.

The industry gets blessings to do alot of things that individuals would not get when they asked.

Bender- this stuff is right up your alley. Any good ideas/solutions? Ways to maybe work around but within the law? Potential angles to consider? I know the risks... I just want some fresh ideas & perspectives.

[DMY]

Looks like this has already been resolved. Apparently the rifle is 922 compliant as it is.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=52011

Good details and disclaimer info in the last few posts.

[Bendersquint]

Looks like this has already been resolved. Apparently the rifle is 922 compliant as it is.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=52011

Good details and disclaimer info in the last few posts.

Modifying a stock does not make it 922R compliant. A stock completely made in the US makes it 922R complaint.

If all it took was a Modification to make it complaint parts would be driller/milled or turned into compliance....I wish it were that easy.

[DMY]

I think what the guy (watcher) is saying is that by cutting a foreign thumbhole stock apart you create a foreign pistol grip and a foreign buttstock. One foreign part turns into two foreign parts for purposes of 922(r).

Fortunately that has nothing to do with my situation. I kind of like thumbhole stocks... not sure why!

Looks like this has already been resolved. Apparently the rifle is 922 compliant as it is.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=52011

Good details and disclaimer info in the last few posts.

Modifying a stock does not make it 922R compliant. A stock completely made in the US makes it 922R complaint.

If all it took was a Modification to make it complaint parts would be driller/milled or turned into compliance....I wish it were that easy.

[customcruiser]

I replaced my hammer and trigger replacing 2 foreign parts with US made taking my count to 8... including a foreign mag (3 parts - body, base plate & follower)

You can just trash your foreign mags to be compliant or do what I did to make sure 100% that I was 922(r) compliant.

http://sierrapapacx4.com/index/#/stainl ... el-hammer/

[DMY]

I think the gun is 922(r) compliant out of the box. There is no need to have X number of US parts... you just can't have more than 10 foreign parts. Out of the box, the gun has 10 foreign parts, so as long as you don't add more foreign parts I believe you're okay. I think this includes the foreign magazines but I am not 100% sure. As much as I don't want to, I might write the ATF just to make sure. I believe that is what Sierra Papa did.

The trigger is wretched. After you pull through the takeup, you think "this thing should have fired?!" It's a little irritating but functional. I don't think it has am impact on my short range accuracy because I have two hands and a shoulder to steady the gun. The below trigger is tempting!

The BIG surprise... this thing is SOOOOO quiet already! I shot it at an indoor range and 9mm semi-auto pistols were MUCH louder... especially with subs. That long barrel must really suck up the sound.

I replaced my hammer and trigger replacing 2 foreign parts with US made taking my count to 8... including a foreign mag (3 parts - body, base plate & follower)

You can just trash your foreign mags to be compliant or do what I did to make sure 100% that I was 922(r) compliant.

http://sierrapapacx4.com/index/#/stainl ... el-hammer/