Muzzle loading integral suppressor

[T-Rex]

Cl,
I see the convoluted, ATF logic you're applying, but I still disagree.

First: You missed the first portion of the definition of Ammunition.
"The term “Ammunition” means ammunition or cartridge cases, primers, bullets, or propellant powder designed for use in any firearm."
That's it. It's ammunition so, by definition, it's ammunition. The other items are covered under "or". Meaning, they're ammunition by themselves. Also, what you're describing is not included in the "The term shall not include" specification. Sure, the ATF could take a stance, but I doubt it.

Second: By your reasoning, the mechanism which closes the cylinder gap on a Nagant revolver would be a silencer.

Instead of a plunger, why not look at Knight's design for the silenced Ruger Super Redhawk. I know you and I have discussed this before. I think it could apply here.

[doubloon]

...
Second: By your reasoning, the mechanism which closes the cylinder gap on a Nagant revolver would be a silencer.
...[/img]

"Why didn't I think of that?" sez every Nazi BATFE putz everywhere simultaneously.

[Capt. Link.]

Cl,
I see the convoluted, ATF logic you're applying, but I still disagree.

First: You missed the first portion of the definition of Ammunition.
"The term “Ammunition” means ammunition or cartridge cases, primers, bullets, or propellant powder designed for use in any firearm."
That's it. It's ammunition so, by definition, it's ammunition. The other items are covered under "or". Meaning, they're ammunition by themselves. Also, what you're describing is not included in the "The term shall not include" specification. Sure, the ATF could take a stance, but I doubt it.

Second: By your reasoning, the mechanism which closes the cylinder gap on a Nagant revolver would be a silencer.

Instead of a plunger, why not look at Knight's design for the silenced Ruger Super Redhawk. I know you and I have discussed this before. I think it could apply here.

Neither of those ammo types will diminish report plus one is highly regulated.Sealing the chamber barrel area only prevents leakage and dose not decrease energy.

You still need to get by the big fancy word book.I'm not being argumentative but don't wish someone going down that path and get in trouble.I contacted a company that once built or still makes captive piston ammo and will post any reply.

§479.11 Meaning of terms in the big fancy word book.

Any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm

Clearly a captive piston will diminish the report as it was designed to do.

Muffler or silencer. 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, and any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication.

[Capt. Link.]

I received a email from Armstech a company that made captive piston ammo.

Dear Mr. XXXX,
With Captive piston ammo, each round is considered a suppressor. I believe that the definition of "suppressor" that ATF uses is "any device intended to decrease the sound signature of a weapon". While captive piston ammo does not come close to the form factor of the standard suppressor they most certainly meet the functional definition. Captive piston systems are quite interesting from the technical point of view but I would STRONGLY advise anyone who is not a manufacturer with SOT to stay well clear of such things. Even if the person thinking about it has a new invention it the area the profit potential is no where near the legal fees a violation would create.
Hope this is of some help.

[gunny50]

I received a email from Armstech a company that made captive piston ammo.

Dear Mr. XXXX,
With Captive piston ammo, each round is considered a suppressor. I believe that the definition of "suppressor" that ATF uses is "any device intended to decrease the sound signature of a weapon". While captive piston ammo does not come close to the form factor of the standard suppressor they most certainly meet the functional definition. Captive piston systems are quite interesting from the technical point of view but I would STRONGLY advise anyone who is not a manufacturer with SOT to stay well clear of such things. Even if the person thinking about it has a new invention it the area the profit potential is no where near the legal fees a violation would create.
Hope this is of some help.

Ahh you talked to my good fiend Joseph R.

[Capt. Link.]

I received a email from Armstech a company that made captive piston ammo.

Dear Mr. XXXX,
With Captive piston ammo, each round is considered a suppressor. I believe that the definition of "suppressor" that ATF uses is "any device intended to decrease the sound signature of a weapon". While captive piston ammo does not come close to the form factor of the standard suppressor they most certainly meet the functional definition. Captive piston systems are quite interesting from the technical point of view but I would STRONGLY advise anyone who is not a manufacturer with SOT to stay well clear of such things. Even if the person thinking about it has a new invention it the area the profit potential is no where near the legal fees a violation would create.
Hope this is of some help.

Ahh you talked to my good fiend Joseph R.

A clear quick reply,I should invite him to post here.I would love to have one of his pistols even without ammo....plus 200.00$ tax to add insult to injury.Long time my friend hope holidays were great for the family.

[bigj480]

This is off topic, but what I would find interesting is a semi-auto the used blanks to drive a piston that would then propel the bullet. It would be a single piston that is part of the mechanism rather than piston ammo and thus would only need one stamp. Alternatively, a revolver cylinder functioning on the same principle with built in pistons might be seen as a single device for for the purpose of registering.

[Capt. Link.]

This is off topic, but what I would find interesting is a semi-auto the used blanks to drive a piston that would then propel the bullet. It would be a single piston that is part of the mechanism rather than piston ammo and thus would only need one stamp. Alternatively, a revolver cylinder functioning on the same principle with built in pistons might be seen as a single device for for the purpose of registering.

Interesting concept but how would the projectiles be loaded in a single piston semi auto using blanks? A captive piston cap & ball revolver cylinder has been proposed under the guise of a antique firearm.I suggested a pepperbox design as a barrel of traditional design is not in used many captive piston pistols.
I don't think discussion of a suppressed muzzle loader of any design on the spur topic of captive piston pistols is off topic.
Welcome to the group.

[alordnapa]

Assuming that the very concept of a antique, blackpowder "Non-Firearm" ( I can't think of a more accurate description) with a built-in, non-detachable noise abatement system is not a "silenced firearm" requiring multiple Tax stamps and mother-may-I's, and it otherwise legal, it seems to me a revolver is still a good choice. The approach of using a saboted, sub-caliber bullet of the gas sealed variety would allow the revolver to have a fixed, and sealed, er, muffler... The Revolver conversion would simply be installing a rifled liner, and perhaps cutting the front face of the cylinder down, or cutting down the forcing cone, to allow the gas seal to make sufficient contact, and permanently attaching a suitable hearing protection device ( You could add platinum to make it a catalytic converter to make the boomstick "Green", a selling point for liberals. Many blackpowder revolvers can be relatively quickly reloaded by just pulling a pin and carrying extra loaded cylinders in the fashion of speed loaders. I can't help but thinking that you could get a bit more muzzle energy out of a gas-seal design than a captive piston.

[cdhknives]

Back on the original topic, if the configuration is thus would it be legal: Build a 2 piece suppressor with a significant reflex section. Weld the reflex section to the muzzleloader barrel. Thread the rest of the tube, the baffle section, to the reflex section. This would make the internals accessible for cleaning the corrosive BP gunk, the baffle section would NOT be able to be assembled into a working suppressor as it is mated to the reflex section in a one of a kind build, so it is NOT a suppressor by law since it was never (and can not be as the parts to do so do not exist) assembled in the configuration of a working 'firearm suppressor' as defined under NFA. Viable workaround???

By properly sizing the bore and using a thin tube from suppressor exit to muzzle you would be able to load through the bore of the suppressor. The crown could even be stepped to allow proper positioning of a loading tube.

[T-Rex]

While your idea would appear sound to the regular crowd, I'd suspect the ATF to find the opposite. In cases of this nature, they've held anything that can be "readily assembled" would be, in and of itself, a silencer. Yes, even if it would take a full 8hr day with machine tools to adapt. This is why the silencer must be perm affixed to an airgun, paintball gun, muzzle-loader, etc.

A couple notes on this subject, to show just how close to the edge it truly is.

1. The guy selling 22lr "muzzle brakes" (nothing more than a tubeless monocore) won his case because the ATF failed to prove it silenced a firearm. They managed this because they never actually tested it. The item was marketed as a muzzle brake and that's where it stayed. If they had tested it (read below in the SIG trial) things may have turned for the worse.

2. SIG lost the MPX case one 2 counts. The first one was weak, actually they both were, but argued in court. The ATF proved the muzzle brake reduced the report of a firearm, but only after they slid a tube over it. Concluding that it could be "readily converted". The thing that sealed the deal was the fact that SIG used their suppressor monocore as the muzzle brake. The muzzle brake and the monocore had the exact same part number. Again, I say this is a weak point because once it has more than one use, by definition, it's no longer a silencer. But, the ATF won that one.

3. I can't recall the guys name or find the case # in my files, but there's a case of something very similar. The guy was a convicted felon, unable to possess firearms, but was making airgun silencers. They weren't perm-attached and here's where the ATF made it's argument. Even though it would take some doing to match "designed or redesigned", the maker had enough knowledge to facilitate such adaption for use on an actual firearm.

4. This is the agency that determined a shoestring to be a MG.


These being the reason most of us were describing a sealed unit.