PDA

View Full Version : Is this compensator OK to use for featureless builds???


RuggedJay
02-01-2012, 2:36 PM
Can I use it or not?:

http://www.rainierarms.com/?page=shop/detail&product_id=1684

stix213
02-01-2012, 2:39 PM
Rainier Arms Xtreme Tactical Compensator is designed to reduce felt recoil & muzzle rise with a relatively low muzzle flash.

It says it reduces muzzle flash in the very first sentence of the product description.

REH
02-01-2012, 2:48 PM
I believe that CA DOJ uses ATF interpolation of flash suppressor.

Chaos47
02-01-2012, 2:55 PM
I believe that CA DOJ uses ATF interpolation of flash suppressor.
Most people here say differently.

I'm going to say no because everyone says the tines on the PWS FSC556 makes it a flash hider even though they have an ATF letter that says it isn't.

RuggedJay
02-01-2012, 3:03 PM
It says it reduces muzzle flash in the very first sentence of the product description.

The battlecomp also reduces muzzle flash but Ive seen some people say it OK to use.

Chaos47
02-01-2012, 3:07 PM
The battlecomp also reduces muzzle flash but Ive seen some people say it OK to use.

"some people" might not be correct some other people say its not
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=253777&page=8

Havoc70
02-01-2012, 3:11 PM
No, and here's why: the opening on the end of the device is larger than the bore of the rifle and the "sniff test" for a compensator/muzzle brake is that is the same bore of the barrel.

See attached, this is the one I used. I can't give you a name, I bought it as part of my complete upper build.

RuggedJay
02-01-2012, 3:22 PM
So the letter from DOJ to Battlecomp stating that Battlecomp was defined as a compensator is FUD?

bwiese
02-01-2012, 3:43 PM
So the letter from DOJ to Battlecomp stating that Battlecomp was defined as a compensator is FUD?

California DOJ issued a letter to Battlecomp? Please show me.

You might have an ATF letter, which can be useful in some aspects.

In that case, please get your agency name right.

Left hand vs. right hand CAN AND DOES MATTER in certain things.

But CA DOJ BoF as far as I know "ain't issuing letters" - and I'd love to see one if you have
one since that is far more interesting than the subject at hand, for numerous reasons.


Bottom line: due to Hunt v Lockyer/Hunt v. Brown litigation and depositions California DOJ does not have a great standard for flash hider/ suppressor functionality, nor valid testing regime, etc.

You should not...


knowingly use a product advertised for flash/brightness reduction
(if you want to run 'featureless' - irrelevant if BulletButton maglock)
.
use a product that you can tell visibly reduces flash to you.
(if you want to run 'featureless' - irrelevant if BulletButton maglock)
.
if the device is sold as a "muzzle brake" with no touting of FH ability
.

Generally 'small holes are good with small hole at muzzle'; and 'slits are bad with larger-than-bore-opening at muzzle'.

Chaos47
02-01-2012, 3:50 PM
They don't have a CA DOJ letter, they wont approve anything. They may have an ATF letter but I can't find it even if they do it means absolutely nothing in CA. Can you find the letter?

I wish the XTC was GTG but really I doubt it (It does have bigger tines which in the middle are only about the size of the bullet, but still the tines themselves are supposedly the issue)

It's all a gray area with the ones that are not clearly just a brake. So its all speculation.

bwiese
02-01-2012, 3:58 PM
They don't have a CA DOJ letter, they wont approve anything. They may have an ATF letter but I can't find it even if they do it means absolutely nothing in CA. Can you find the letter?


Don't be so fast.

SOMETIMES ATF letters can be helpful, sometimes not.

Varies by situation. If the ATF letter says "we don't consider this device to be a FH/FS since we don't see optical power reduction", that would be very very helpful.

Such ATF letters are less likely to exists for post-2004 devices given the expiry/sunset of the Fed AWB in 2004.

Chaos47
02-01-2012, 4:13 PM
Was writing my reply at the same time as you bwiese, you beat me to it.

Wish I could find a link to the PWS FSC556 ATF letter so you could tell me why everyone says that it does nothing for California then. But unfortunately all the links I can find are dead.

Chaos47
02-01-2012, 4:16 PM
Finally found it
http://primaryweapons.com/store/pc/documents/ATF_FSC556.pdf

RuggedJay
02-01-2012, 4:18 PM
Read this thread. Theres a post from a Sgt. Aherne thats interesting.
http://downloads.brankovukelic.com/showthread.php?t=55210&page=3

Chaos47
02-01-2012, 4:27 PM
Read this thread. Theres a post from a Sgt. Aherne thats interesting.
http://downloads.brankovukelic.com/showthread.php?t=55210&page=3

That's not an official letter. Sgt. Patrick Aherne is the brother of the maker of the BC. Its not even clear where he works

If they have a letter from CA Department of Justice Firearms Bureau Chief Steve Buford they should make it public.
Consulted doesn't mean they have a letter

RuggedJay
02-01-2012, 4:32 PM
I understand its better safe than sorry as far as a featureless build. Was just curios though.

franklinarmory
02-03-2012, 8:41 AM
That's not an official letter. Sgt. Patrick Aherne is the brother of the maker of the BC. Its not even clear where he works

If they have a letter from CA Department of Justice Firearms Bureau Chief Steve Buford they should make it public.
Consulted doesn't mean they have a letter

Okay, I apologize in advance for hijacking the thread, but.....

Why should a Police Lieutenant, while working on a commercial enterprise, be able to secure marketable information from a government agency? I don't blame Alan for getting what he can out of DOJ, but if Alan is telling the truth (and I think he is,) then why should he be able to receive this information while other manufacturers are told that the DOJ BOF does not give "legal advice?"

If this really happened, then this is a double standard that should not be tolerated from the chief law enforcement agency in the state! Think of how different the California firearms market would be if the AG would actually take a leadership role in the domain that they are charged to regulate. It's bad enough that they defer to the "58 County DAs" in derogation of the State Preemption of Firearms Act! Now they want to provide marketable information to some "connected" mfgs, while telling others they don't give legal advice??? Where I come, that's called corruption!

I know, I know, I'll probably get a knock at the door for this post, but this is just wrong! :cuss:

bwiese
02-03-2012, 9:59 AM
Okay, I apologize in advance for hijacking the thread, but.....

Why should a Police Lieutenant, while working on a commercial enterprise, be able to secure marketable information from a government agency? I don't blame Alan for getting what he can out of DOJ, but if Alan is telling the truth (and I think he is,) then why should he be able to receive this information while other manufacturers are told that the DOJ BOF does not give "legal advice?"

If this really happened, then this is a double standard that should not be tolerated from the chief law enforcement agency in the state! Think of how different the California firearms market would be if the AG would actually take a leadership role in the domain that they are charged to regulate. It's bad enough that they defer to the "58 County DAs" in derogation of the State Preemption of Firearms Act! Now they want to provide marketable information to some "connected" mfgs, while telling others they don't give legal advice??? Where I come, that's called corruption!

I know, I know, I'll probably get a knock at the door for this post, but this is just wrong! :cuss:

Jay,

I recall CA law is that CA DOJ - as opposed to their stance (lack of) coherent, reliable responses to individuals and vendors - *must* render rational responses [not necessarily formal 'opiion letters'] to legislators & sheriffs. (I'm unclear if Sheriffs are categorized differently than police chiefs.)

I'd bet that someone with an LE background is getting the info under that guise.

What we really need to do is get a real friendly pro-gun sheriff and legislator that will pass any questions we have on their official stationery.

franklinarmory
02-03-2012, 10:18 AM
It seems to me that a lot of Chiefs and Sheriffs have been stonewalled too.

bwiese
02-03-2012, 10:22 AM
It seems to me that a lot of Chiefs and Sheriffs have been stonewalled too.

If I'm reading what I think is correct into what you are saying, a Sheriff that is rebuffed (on paper - NO PHONE CALLS) may have an actionable path should he choose to go down that road. Getting a political animal to do that may be another thing, however.

[BTW I truly mean a "Sheriff", not "deputy".

Should you know of such an animal, you should make life easy for him and give him all sorts of letters and time responses. All he has to do is the mailing. We can then go from there.

mag360
02-03-2012, 1:02 PM
how about Scott Jones, he's crpa's leo of the year! After the banquet perhaps some seeds could be watered.