Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-19-2017, 11:21 AM
mike_the_wino's Avatar
mike_the_wino mike_the_wino is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Right here
Posts: 2,863
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default Compensator makes AW now?

Buddy just sent me some grainy screenshot of his computer and he is saying that the new regs state "if any flash can be redirected its a suppressor" and claims there is no mention of compensators....hence compensators now make assault weapons.

I come before the orcacle of Calguns because this dude is a one-man FUD factory and I seek clarification. What say ye?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-19-2017, 11:29 AM
LeadFarmer74's Avatar
LeadFarmer74 LeadFarmer74 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: The Real Northern Cali
Posts: 2,950
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

If it reduces flash it's a flash hider, if it doesn't then you are good.
__________________
NRA Lifer
Quote:
Originally Posted by Click Boom View Post
I know your ban hammer is cold hammer forged and chrome lined, im not messin with it!
AK Sporter Stock, Handguard, Gas Tube here:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1275603

Last edited by LeadFarmer74; 05-19-2017 at 11:32 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-19-2017, 11:31 AM
God Bless America's Avatar
God Bless America God Bless America is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 2,269
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Not accurate. Redirected from the shooter's view is what matters.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-19-2017, 12:17 PM
mshill's Avatar
mshill mshill is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,722
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Full of ****.
__________________
Quote:
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-19-2017, 5:34 PM
OlderThanDirt's Avatar
OlderThanDirt OlderThanDirt is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Aztlan
Posts: 3,040
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless America View Post
Not accurate. Redirected from the shooter's view is what matters.
A muzzle brake that diverts the gas to the sides would likely be considered a flash suppressor under the new regulations since the flash would definitely be diverted from the shooter's view. This has the potential to suck in a lot more firearms as AWs. I suspect there have been some firearms sold since January that are now considered AWs since they have an evil muzzle gas diverter.

This seems to be the way DOJ has backed into the expired federal AW ban where you couldn't even purchase an AR with a threaded barrel.

I see a lot of inadvertent felons on the horizon...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-19-2017, 8:20 PM
2Aallday 2Aallday is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 208
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

It seems to me that it's entirely up to DOJ as to whether something is a flash suppressor. It then becomes your all-too-real problem to prove that it isn't.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-19-2017, 8:53 PM
elSquid's Avatar
elSquid elSquid is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Left coast.
Posts: 9,276
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Existing CCR:

https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Doc...ta=(sc.Default)

§ 5469. Definitions.
11 CA ADC § 5469BARCLAYS OFFICIAL CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS

The following definitions apply to terms used in the identification of assault weapons pursuant to Penal Code section 30515:
(a) “Detachable magazine” means any ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm with neither disassembly of the firearm action nor use of a tool being required. A bullet or ammunition cartridge is considered a tool. Ammunition feeding device includes any belted or linked ammunition, but does not include clips, en bloc clips, or stripper clips that load cartridges into the magazine.
(b) “Flash suppressor” means any device designed, intended, or that functions to perceptibly reduce or redirect muzzle flash from the shooter's field of vision.
(c) “Forward pistol grip” means a grip that allows for a pistol style grasp forward of the trigger.
(d) “Pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon” means a grip that allows for a pistol style grasp in which the web of the trigger hand (between the thumb and index finger) can be placed below the top of the exposed portion of the trigger while firing.
(e) “Thumbhole stock” means a stock with a hole that allows the thumb of the trigger hand to penetrate into or through the stock while firing.


Proposed regs add on to b) above...

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...ulation%20.pdf

"Flash suppressor" means anv device attached to the'end of the barrel, that is designed,intended, or functions to perceptibly reduce or redirect muzzle flash from the shooter'sfield of vision. A hybrid device that has either advertised flash su~pressin~properties orfunctionally has flash suppressingproperties would be deemed a flash suppressor. Adevice labeled or identified by its manufacturer as a flash hider would be deemed a flashsuppressor.


The core element of "functions to perceptibly reduce or redirect muzzle flash from the shooter's field of vision" seems to have not changed.

-- Michael
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-19-2017, 8:58 PM
boltstop's Avatar
boltstop boltstop is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 439
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OlderThanDirt View Post
A muzzle brake that diverts the gas to the sides would likely be considered a flash suppressor under the new regulations since the flash would definitely be diverted from the shooter's view. This has the potential to suck in a lot more firearms as AWs. I suspect there have been some firearms sold since January that are now considered AWs since they have an evil muzzle gas diverter.

This seems to be the way DOJ has backed into the expired federal AW ban where you couldn't even purchase an AR with a threaded barrel.

I see a lot of inadvertent felons on the horizon...
I would be interested in seeing some details as to why you think this would be the case. What specifically has changed?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-19-2017, 11:57 PM
OlderThanDirt's Avatar
OlderThanDirt OlderThanDirt is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Aztlan
Posts: 3,040
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

The PC definition is very similar as from SB23, but the expanded rationale from the DOJ to include the characteristics of a "hybrid device" would seem to support the inclusion of some muzzle brakes as flash suppressors. This is something that they struggled with when the DOJ wrote the SB23 regulations at a time when the DOJ wasn't nearly as hostile as they are today.

Old
Quote:
“Flash suppressor” means any device designed, intended, or that functions to perceptibly reduce or redirect muzzle flash from the shooter's field of vision.
New
Quote:
"Flash suppressor" means. any device attached to the end of the barrel, that is designed, intended, or functions to perceptibly reduce or redirect muzzle flash from the shooter`s field of vision. A hybrid device that has either advertised flash suppressing properties or functionally has flash suppressing properties would be deemed a flash suppressor. A device labeled or identified by its manufacturer as a flash hider would be deemed a flash suppressor.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-20-2017, 12:44 AM
jcwatchdog jcwatchdog is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,840
iTrader: 79 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OlderThanDirt View Post
A muzzle brake that diverts the gas to the sides would likely be considered a flash suppressor under the new regulations since the flash would definitely be diverted from the shooter's view. This has the potential to suck in a lot more firearms as AWs. I suspect there have been some firearms sold since January that are now considered AWs since they have an evil muzzle gas diverter.

This seems to be the way DOJ has backed into the expired federal AW ban where you couldn't even purchase an AR with a threaded barrel.

I see a lot of inadvertent felons on the horizon...


A muzzle brake with side ports is still perfectly fine. It is not designed, intended or functions to perceptible redirect muzzle flash from the shooters field of vision. Just because the flash goes sideways, the flash is still completely in the field of view.

(b) “Flash suppressor” means any device designed, intended, or that functions to perceptibly reduce or redirect muzzle flash from the shooter's field of vision.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 05-20-2017, 5:18 AM
Wiz-of-Awd's Avatar
Wiz-of-Awd Wiz-of-Awd is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Where I'm at ;)
Posts: 3,556
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jcwatchdog View Post
A muzzle brake with side ports is still perfectly fine. It is not designed, intended or functions to perceptible redirect muzzle flash from the shooters field of vision. Just because the flash goes sideways, the flash is still completely in the field of view.

(b) “Flash suppressor” means any device designed, intended, or that functions to perceptibly reduce or redirect muzzle flash from the shooter's field of vision.
A more correct, and not so much to do with the shooter really:

A flash suppressor, also known as a flash guard, flash eliminator, flash hider, or flash cone, is a device attached to the muzzle of a rifle that reduces its visible signature while firing by cooling or dispersing the burning gases that exit the muzzle, a phenomenon typical of carbine-length weapons.

A.W.D.
__________________
Quote:
Seven. The answer is always seven.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-20-2017, 5:24 AM
Whiskey_Tango's Avatar
Whiskey_Tango Whiskey_Tango is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: PRK
Posts: 1,087
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

Tag
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-20-2017, 7:55 AM
ironpegasus ironpegasus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 533
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elSquid View Post
(b) “Flash suppressor” means any device designed, intended, or that functions to perceptibly reduce or redirect muzzle flash from the shooter's field of vision.
This is the truly dangerous part - "perceptibly" - to who or what? Since it's undefined it could mean perceptible to greater than 50% of an appropriately sized sample group of humans or it could mean detectable by computer assisted imaging 10,000x more sensitive than the human eye. There's a huge amount of leeway in that single line of statute, such that basically any muzzle device could be a flash suppressor statutorily - and you can expect the legal apparatus to utilize that gray area in their favor. Just another law that has no real grounding in anything other than control over the law abiding.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-20-2017, 8:20 AM
jcwatchdog jcwatchdog is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,840
iTrader: 79 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ironpegasus View Post
This is the truly dangerous part - "perceptibly" - to who or what? Since it's undefined it could mean perceptible to greater than 50% of an appropriately sized sample group of humans or it could mean detectable by computer assisted imaging 10,000x more sensitive than the human eye. There's a huge amount of leeway in that single line of statute, such that basically any muzzle device could be a flash suppressor statutorily - and you can expect the legal apparatus to utilize that gray area in their favor. Just another law that has no real grounding in anything other than control over the law abiding.

That's why you won't ever see anyone tried for just having some random muzzle device on the end of a barrel. It has leeway, but it goes both ways and there's too much ambiguity. A whole case will never revolve over just that one piece.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-20-2017, 8:21 AM
God Bless America's Avatar
God Bless America God Bless America is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 2,269
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OlderThanDirt View Post
This is something that they struggled with when the DOJ wrote the SB23 regulations at a time when the DOJ wasn't nearly as hostile as they are today.
The DOJ is not hostile. The proposed regs explicitly allow an AR broken in 2 parts to not be an AW. They did not have to do that. They could have said the opppsite.

The DOJ is staffed with legal professionals who work on many different subject matters. They are not out to get us. The deluded fanatics in Excremento are the ones hostile to us.

You do not understand how bad it could be if the DOJ really was out to get us.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05-20-2017, 9:26 AM
NATEWA NATEWA is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,105
iTrader: 51 / 100%
Default

Just ordered a thread protector. $10 to keep me out of trouble - ridiculous law.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-20-2017, 9:43 AM
Limeman's Avatar
Limeman Limeman is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: NorCal - Voted for Trump!!
Posts: 442
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

What about those with 14.5" barrels with pinned/welded flash suppressors/compensators to make the required 16"? I guess we're heading to the gunsmith with a hope and prayer they don't damage our barrels removing and installing what, per say to stay legal?
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05-20-2017, 10:56 AM
Tasty's Avatar
Tasty Tasty is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,489
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

**** them. I'm over these games. I keep a close eye on the equity that my house is gaining and am planning my exit. CA has been my home my whole life. My friends, family and career are all here. But my freedom isn't and that's more important to me. I don't want to run the risk of being put behind bars despite my best efforts to comply with the new BS laws because I get the wrong person evaluating my rifle's muzzle device.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-20-2017, 11:02 AM
hunterb's Avatar
hunterb hunterb is offline
I LOVE GUNS!
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: SGV
Posts: 2,264
iTrader: 57 / 100%
Default

ANY DOJ member is welcome to stand downrange to check flash suppression.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by compulsivegunbuyer View Post
But I swear, I'm not a hippy. I always carry a sidearm when baking and watering my vegetables.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05-20-2017, 1:57 PM
EBR Works's Avatar
EBR Works EBR Works is offline
Vendor/Retailer
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Prescott, AZ
Posts: 9,260
iTrader: 105 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless America View Post
The DOJ is not hostile. The proposed regs explicitly allow an AR broken in 2 parts to not be an AW. They did not have to do that. They could have said the opppsite.

The DOJ is staffed with legal professionals who work on many different subject matters. They are not out to get us. The deluded fanatics in Excremento are the ones hostile to us.

You do not understand how bad it could be if the DOJ really was out to get us.
You have apparently never been inspected by CALDOJ. Ask any dealer about the vibe during said inspection. They are not your buddy.
__________________


Check out our e-commerce site here:

www.ebrworks.com

Now serving you from Prescott, AZ
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 05-20-2017, 2:40 PM
Blade Gunner's Avatar
Blade Gunner Blade Gunner is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,536
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OlderThanDirt View Post
The PC definition is very similar as from SB23, but the expanded rationale from the DOJ to include the characteristics of a "hybrid device" would seem to support the inclusion of some muzzle brakes as flash suppressors. This is something that they struggled with when the DOJ wrote the SB23 regulations at a time when the DOJ wasn't nearly as hostile as they are today.



Old





New


Which really pisses me off because I have a Lantac Dragon (which works fantastic in a 308AR) and I've been advised by many that when the device was first advertised it mentioned flash reduction, which it doesn't anymore.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
If you find yourself in a fair fight, you're doing it all wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 05-21-2017, 9:06 AM
gtarifa74's Avatar
gtarifa74 gtarifa74 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Sacramento County
Posts: 1,023
iTrader: 133 / 100%
Default

Just placed a thread protector on mine and called it a day
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 05-21-2017, 9:40 AM
Californio Californio is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: So. Cal
Posts: 3,658
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

This is far reaching. So you have a customized Mini-14 which is still NOT part of the AW law and just like SB23 you had to make sure the device on the end of the barrel did not make it a AW, since it looks like what is a flash suppressor has been expanded, you are back in the depends "what is is" category.
__________________
"I said I never had much use for one. Never said I didn't know how to use it." Matthew Quigley
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 05-21-2017, 9:47 AM
doggie's Avatar
doggie doggie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 565
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Limeman View Post
What about those with 14.5" barrels with pinned/welded flash suppressors/compensators to make the required 16"? I guess we're heading to the gunsmith with a hope and prayer they don't damage our barrels removing and installing what, per say to stay legal?
The situation you describe is one which really sucks. Changing the rules after the game has started is total BS.
__________________

You talkin ta me?
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 05-21-2017, 2:13 PM
HiveDR. HiveDR. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: california
Posts: 283
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Limeman View Post
What about those with 14.5" barrels with pinned/welded flash suppressors/compensators to make the required 16"? I guess we're heading to the gunsmith with a hope and prayer they don't damage our barrels removing and installing what, per say to stay legal?
Just by your own description of the above if installed on a featureless rifle have been illegal and will continue to be. They are though legal on RAW and BB rifles now and after registration.

Don't get featureless and BB rifles confused.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 05-21-2017, 3:04 PM
HiveDR. HiveDR. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: california
Posts: 283
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

First off this is not a law, it is a regulation to help clarify and provide guidance to DAs and is not part of the new law requiring BB registration that was voted on and passed by the State Legislature. That alone is a point of contention to be addressed in court in the days to come.

Second "Field of View" is vague and ambiguous. What/How is field of view determined? There is no definition provided in the regs similar to the many other definition provide that outline this or "standardizes" its meaning and method of testing. Before one can determined what "perceived" is one must know what "Field of View" is.

Is "Field of View" determined with both eyes open, one eye open looking through iron sights, both eyes open looking through a red dot, one eye open looking through a red dot or one eye open looking through a magnified optic, what lighting level, from the side, top, front or back? = Vague and Ambiguous.

My .02 cent
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 05-21-2017, 3:28 PM
Ocguy31 Ocguy31 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Orange County
Posts: 325
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless America View Post
The DOJ is not hostile. The proposed regs explicitly allow an AR broken in 2 parts to not be an AW. They did not have to do that. They could have said the opppsite.

The DOJ is staffed with legal professionals who work on many different subject matters. They are not out to get us. The deluded fanatics in Excremento are the ones hostile to us.

You do not understand how bad it could be if the DOJ really was out to get us.
An un-elected, faceless body released a sloppy, inconsistent, and blatantly unconstitutional set of regulations. The fact that they included an option to avoid abiding by said regulations by rendering your legally acquired personal property completely useless, is not a "gift", or something to be thankful for.

"He beats me, but he still feeds me dinner and lets me sleep in the bed. He doesn't have to do that, you know."
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 05-21-2017, 3:29 PM
Blade Gunner's Avatar
Blade Gunner Blade Gunner is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,536
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ocguy31 View Post
An un-elected, faceless body released a sloppy, inconsistent, and blatantly unconstitutional set of regulations. The fact that they included an option to avoid abiding by said regulations by rendering your legally acquired personal property completely useless, is not a "gift", or something to be thankful for.



"He beats me, but he still feeds me dinner and lets me sleep in the bed. He doesn't have to do that, you know."


^^^^^^^^This^^^^^^^^


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
If you find yourself in a fair fight, you're doing it all wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 05-21-2017, 7:15 PM
jwtiger69 jwtiger69 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 64
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

So if I do plan on registering my AR which has a muzzle device that states it reduces flash signature I need to put a muzzle break on it? Just trying to get clarification...




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 05-21-2017, 7:33 PM
penguinman penguinman is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 209
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jwtiger69 View Post
So if I do plan on registering my AR which has a muzzle device that states it reduces flash signature I need to put a muzzle break on it? Just trying to get clarification...
No. If you register it it's fine. You could even keep an actual flash hider on it. It's those of us who are going the featureless route that might have an issue.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 05-21-2017, 7:43 PM
jwtiger69 jwtiger69 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 64
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by penguinman View Post
No. If you register it it's fine. You could even keep an actual flash hider on it. It's those of us who are going the featureless route that might have an issue.


Thanks! Way to much information out there right now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 05-22-2017, 8:21 AM
arrowshooter's Avatar
arrowshooter arrowshooter is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Modesto
Posts: 470
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

It appears to me that the DOJ has only further defined a "flash suppressor" to remove confusion that can be had with certain muzzle devises. There are muzzle brakes out there that also include flash suppressor "fingers" off the end and most are advertised as compensator/flash hiders. This is what I believe they are making sure are considered a flash hider:

http://www.tacticallink.com/assets/i...6/SAM_1971.jpg
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 05-23-2017, 6:30 AM
CaliforniaPhotographer's Avatar
CaliforniaPhotographer CaliforniaPhotographer is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 292
iTrader: 27 / 100%
Default

BCM Mod 0 or Mod 1 compensators.... legal or not? Any thoughts?
__________________
"To Live is to suffer, to survive, well that is to find the meaning in the suffering."
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 05-23-2017, 6:45 AM
OlderThanDirt's Avatar
OlderThanDirt OlderThanDirt is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Aztlan
Posts: 3,040
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

According to the manufacturer's description, the BCM is designed to reduce "flash signature." That would be a no no for a featureless rifle.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 05-23-2017, 6:49 AM
Wiz-of-Awd's Avatar
Wiz-of-Awd Wiz-of-Awd is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Where I'm at ;)
Posts: 3,556
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliforniaPhotographer View Post
BCM Mod 0 or Mod 1 compensators.... legal or not? Any thoughts?
Well, I would say from my reading...

The BCMGUNFIGHTER Compensator Mod 0-5.56
This Compensator was not designed as a gamers comp. It was designed for tactical applications to reduce muzzle rise, flash signature, noise, and lateral pressure.


The BCMGUNFIGHTER Compensator Mod 1 - 5.56
Tuned slots and interior cone offer maximum in recoil mitigations, compensation of muzzle-rise, and flash reduction.


A.W.D.
__________________
Quote:
Seven. The answer is always seven.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 05-23-2017, 12:33 PM
boltstop's Avatar
boltstop boltstop is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 439
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

What about the comp that Springfield have been putting on their M1A rifles for years?
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 05-23-2017, 1:44 PM
EBR Works's Avatar
EBR Works EBR Works is offline
Vendor/Retailer
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Prescott, AZ
Posts: 9,260
iTrader: 105 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by boltstop View Post
What about the comp that Springfield have been putting on their M1A rifles for years?
The brake on the Scout is not a flash hider. Most other models have a flash hider.
__________________


Check out our e-commerce site here:

www.ebrworks.com

Now serving you from Prescott, AZ
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 05-23-2017, 2:51 PM
boltstop's Avatar
boltstop boltstop is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 439
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Thanks.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 05-23-2017, 11:24 PM
70runner's Avatar
70runner 70runner is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Avocado country
Posts: 30
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Spike's 5.56 Dynacomp Extreme Muzzle Brake ok for featureless? Nothing in their features/specs about flash signature.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 05-24-2017, 6:49 AM
arrowshooter's Avatar
arrowshooter arrowshooter is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Modesto
Posts: 470
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 70runner View Post
Spike's 5.56 Dynacomp Extreme Muzzle Brake ok for featureless? Nothing in their features/specs about flash signature.
From the video that I just watched it definitely does not hide any flash.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 3:21 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.