Calguns.net

Calguns.net (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/index.php)
-   FFL's Forum (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/forumdisplay.php?f=168)
-   -   SOT, cans and featureless builds. (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=630151)

EBR Works 10-10-2012 12:27 AM

SOT, cans and featureless builds.
 
Being a SOT, I have an integrally suppressed, non-SBR .300 BLK upper coming in several months. The question is whether this would be usable in a featureless AR build? Would a can be defined as a flash hider? Thoughts?

Gio 10-10-2012 12:38 AM

Pretty sure that will be a no go, but who am I to say so :confused:

Chaos47 10-10-2012 2:32 AM

Gonna say no.

If you look at the process the CADOJ would use to test for flash suppression you will see that they use the statement "particular feature or deviced". They don't say muzzle brake, flash hider etc. It could be argued that a can is just a different type of device that is screwed onto a barrel. But in this case I see yours is internal so it may fall under a "particular feature".

In SB23 Final Statement of Reasons (FSOR) you can see earlier writings of the law. At a point they made it clear its not what the device is called but if it actually does suppress flash, if so then it is a flash suppressor. (Notice FSOR is not the law, but it is a good reference)

Is a can a feature or device that suppresses flash? The CADOJ might say yes.
But who really knows. On a featureless its always best to err on the side of caution...

Quote:

Hunt v. Lockyer Declaration of DOJ Special Agent Ignatius Chinn

7. Accordingly, DOJ determines whether a particular feature or device is a flash suppressor as defined in section 978.20(b) by inspecting the device, reviewing material regarding the device provided by the manufacturer or otherwise, and/or consulting with ATF. In particular, DOJ determines whether a particular device is a flash suppressor under the regulatory definition by following a step-by-step analysis. In nearly all instances to date, DOJ has been able to determine that the device in question is a flash suppressor in the initial stage of the analysis, without needing to proceed further in the determination process.

8. The first step is determination of whether the device in question is designed or intended to perceptibly reduce or redirect muzzle flash from the shooter's field of vision. The assigned Firearms Division personnel examine the device and review material produced by the manufacturer of the device to see what the manufacturer has said publicly about its designed or intended uses for the device. Manufacturer materials reviewed can include brochures and packaging provided with the device, advertising materials, websites, and point-of-sale or other marketing materials. If it is determined that the device in question was designed or intended to perceptibly reduce or redirect muzzle flash from the shooter's field of vision, then the device is determined to be a flash suppressor, and the inquiry is at an end.

9. If however, it is determined that the device in question was not designed or intended to perceptibly reduce or redirect muzzle flash from the shooter's field of vision, then the analysis proceeds to a determination of whether the device nonetheless functions to perceptibly reduce or redirect muzzle flash from the shooter's field of vision. If it is determined that the device in question does not function to perceptibly reduce or redirect muzzle flash from the shooter's field of vision, then the device is determined not to be a flash suppressor, and the inquiry is at an end.

10. If, however, at this stage, Firearms Division personnel were unable to determine whether a particular device functions to perceptibly reduce or redirect muzzle flash from the shooter's field of vision based on inspection of the device, they would consult with ATF.

tenpercentfirearms 10-10-2012 5:20 AM

How is an integral barrel a flash suppressor? Wouldn't it be argued that a regular crowned barrel is a flash suppressor because it redirects the flash away from the shooters field of vision by going straight out the barrel?

The truth is the state has no clue what a flash suppressor is.

rrr70 10-10-2012 5:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tenpercentfirearms (Post 9488060)
How is an integral barrel a flash suppressor? Wouldn't it be argued that a regular crowned barrel is a flash suppressor because it redirects the flash away from the shooters field of vision by going straight out the barrel?

The truth is the state has no clue what a flash suppressor is.

I think it's more like they refusing to give exact definition as to what FH is. In this case they have more leeway to come up with BS.

CSACANNONEER 10-10-2012 6:05 AM

We all know that flash hiders make the shooter invisible so, if a surpressor makes the shooter invisible, it could be considered a flash hider.

Wes,
While I think I follow your logic about integral surpressors, how would you clssify a permanently attached flash hider? Would it be just part of the barrel and no longer considered a "flash hider" or, would it be a barrel with an integral flash hider?

ke6guj 10-10-2012 7:00 AM

my guess would be no as well.

Remember that the feds considered cans to be flash hiders and counted as an evil feature during the fed AWB. I would assume that CADOJ would take the same position.

tenpercentfirearms 10-10-2012 1:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CSACANNONEER (Post 9488143)
Wes,
While I think I follow your logic about integral surpressors, how would you clssify a permanently attached flash hider? Would it be just part of the barrel and no longer considered a "flash hider" or, would it be a barrel with an integral flash hider?

Are there any ports that redirect the flash? No. The flash comes out the end of the muzzle just like a standard barrel. No re-directing has occurred.

In your case of a permantly attached flash suppressor, the flash is re-directed from exiting the muzzle with the bullet to exiting through established slots in order to redirect the flash.

Well at least it sounds good.

EBR Works 10-10-2012 1:43 PM

I talked to Jason Davis. He said it would most likely be a test case. I guess no featureless + can for me...:(

PolishMike 10-10-2012 1:53 PM

I LOVE my integrally suppressed stuff. Finishing up a UMP now :)

But yes, this could probably be argued either way

CSACANNONEER 10-10-2012 2:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tenpercentfirearms (Post 9490680)
Are there any ports that redirect the flash? No. The flash comes out the end of the muzzle just like a standard barrel. No re-directing has occurred.

In your case of a permantly attached flash suppressor, the flash is re-directed from exiting the muzzle with the bullet to exiting through established slots in order to redirect the flash.

Well at least it sounds good.

But, a plain barrel that is crowned and ported isn't a flash hider, is it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by EBR Works (Post 9490737)
I talked to Jason Davis. He said it would most likely be a test case. I guess no featureless + can for me...:(

:(, Well, you could always go non semi-auto and not worry about CA AW laws.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PolishMike (Post 9490798)
I LOVE my integrally suppressed stuff. Finishing up a UMP now :)

But yes, this could probably be argued either way

I've got to play with a few models with intergral surpressors and they are much more fun than having to screw a can on and off. A friend of mine has had a MP5SD in his safe since he bought it for $1200 in 1969. Another friend has a Ruger MKII that I'd love to be able to own. He also has a MP5K with a can and a transferable FCG that he used to shoot yotes with from his back porch.

franklinarmory 10-11-2012 8:48 AM

I like Wes' logic. :)

tenpercentfirearms 10-12-2012 5:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CSACANNONEER (Post 9491122)
I've got to play with a few models with intergral surpressors and they are much more fun than having to screw a can on and off. A friend of mine has had a MP5SD in his safe since he bought it for $1200 in 1969. Another friend has a Ruger MKII that I'd love to be able to own. He also has a MP5K with a can and a transferable FCG that he used to shoot yotes with from his back porch.

I was going to call BS, but wisely did some research first and would never have thought the MP5 came out in the mid sixties. I learn something new all the time.

CSACANNONEER 10-12-2012 7:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tenpercentfirearms (Post 9501699)
I was going to call BS, but wisely did some research first and would never have thought the MP5 came out in the mid sixties. I learn something new all the time.

He bought it from a firend of his who had just purchased 5 of them and didn't need them all. He also hemmed and hawed over spending that much on something he isn't really into. Now it just sits in his safe with his +98% first gen Colts, sub cal (.12-14 cal guns), etc.

PolishMike 10-12-2012 8:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tenpercentfirearms (Post 9501699)
I was going to call BS, but wisely did some research first and would never have thought the MP5 came out in the mid sixties. I learn something new all the time.

I'm just curious why it was so expensive. They cost less than that now

rrr70 10-12-2012 8:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PolishMike (Post 9502311)
I'm just curious why it was so expensive. They cost less than that now

I don't think he's talking about .22 one. ;-)

PolishMike 10-12-2012 8:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rrr70 (Post 9502336)
I don't think he's talking about .22 one. ;-)

I know. A dealer sample MP5 is still less or about that. Complete Semi MP5s in 89 were much less than that.

In 69 a Full auto Mp5 should have been way less than 1200

PolishMike 10-12-2012 8:56 AM

Wait - I'll call BS. The SD didn't come out until 1974

CSACANNONEER 10-12-2012 9:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PolishMike (Post 9502449)
Wait - I'll call BS. The SD didn't come out until 1974

Then either old Sonny's memory is going or mine is. I could have sworn he said '69.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 4:20 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.