PDA

View Full Version : Does BATF ruling regarding “flash suppressors” apply to CA?


paradox
09-04-2007, 3:34 PM
Does BATF ruling regarding “flash suppressors” apply to CA?

Primary Weapons has a new muzzle device:

http://primaryweapons.com/default.asp?page_id=86&parent_id=0&CategoryId=113
http://primaryweapons.com/common/PrimaryWeapons/images/product/FSC556.jpg

They also have a BATF ruling:

http://primaryweapons.com/UserFiles/File/FSC556_web.pdf
The testing of the submitted muzzle attachments by FTB determined that the flash-reduction effectiveness of the submitted devices is not comparable to that of the equivalent military-style flash suppressors, since they did not effectively dampen the flash signature of the test firearms. Therefore, FTB has determined that the DNTC308 and FSC556 are not “flash suppressors.”

The question:
Can we put this on our detachable-magazine builds?

fun2none
09-04-2007, 3:52 PM
If BATFe says it's not a flash suppressor after testing it against equivalent military-style grade flash suppressors, then it is not a flash suppressor. I would say go for it.

Also, didn't Iggy state that the BOF relies on BATF evaluations for such matters ?

StukaJr
09-04-2007, 4:02 PM
I wouldn't mess with it - it does seem like it has a chamber wider than the bullet for gases to expand in, advertised by the manufacturer as having flash-suppressing capability and only ruled by BATFE is "not as effective as other flash hiders)...

BATFE ruling only applies to the defunct Federal Ban - their ruling allowed some of the flash hiders to be okayed for the use, BOF is stalling on their ruling and only waves the prosecution stick... At least, go for the compensator that doesn't have "flash suppressing" in its description

http://primaryweapons.com/common/PrimaryWeapons/images/product/DNTC.jpg

^^ That looks like it could be legal, but too hard to tell from the picture.

If BATFe says it's not a flash suppressor after testing it against equivalent military-style grade flash suppressors, then it is not a flash suppressor. I would say go for it.


That only means it's not a very good flash suppressor - flash suppressor nevertheless :) It has designs of a flash suppressor - I would worry.

paradox
09-04-2007, 4:42 PM
BATFE ruling only applies to the defunct Federal Ban

The letter is dated Jul 30 2007. Well post ban. Some other ban states have said that since the BATFE said so, that this specific muzzle attachment isn't a "flash suppressor."

Just wondering if anyone has sent a letter to CADOJ yet... ;)

savageevo
09-04-2007, 4:48 PM
can you post a link to where we could buy that muzzle break and a link to that letter stating its not a flash suppressor. that break looks good. thanks.

paradox
09-04-2007, 5:00 PM
can you post a link to where we could buy that muzzle break and a link to that letter stating its not a flash suppressor. that break looks good. thanks.

look for the blue things in my first post that look like URLs

Osprey
09-04-2007, 5:12 PM
Interesting. I wasn't aware that the BAT***s were still doing flash suppressor testing. Why do they need to now that we no longer have a federal AWB?

Shane916
09-04-2007, 5:27 PM
Interesting. I wasn't aware that the BAT***s were still doing flash suppressor testing. Why do they need to now that we no longer have a federal AWB?

What's that about??

Osprey
09-04-2007, 5:30 PM
It's a term of endearment. Do you know why they still conduct testing?

bwiese
09-04-2007, 5:37 PM
I would not rely on any Fed vs state 'crossover' on these matters.

If you have a device that perceptibly reduces flash from the shooter's field of vision it could be regarded as a flash hider - esp if it has no other function (muzzle brake). [You might have some defense if the device is sold exclusively as a muzzle brake, you bought it under those auspices, and if flash reduction exists, it's not that significant.]

As I recall, this is an element ongoing contention in Hunt v. Lockyer so these issues can be up in air and are best avoided.

Frankly, most folks here simply don't need a flash hider except for 'dressup' cosmetics. Not having a flash hider allows "featureless" builds using detachable large-capacity magazines (should you happen to legally own the latter).

SemiAutoSam
09-04-2007, 6:28 PM
They are getting up to speed for the new AWB. And dont kid yourself its coming.

Interesting. I wasn't aware that the BAT***s were still doing flash suppressor testing. Why do they need to now that we no longer have a federal AWB?