PDA

View Full Version : Integrally Suppressed Receiver Legal?


killmime1234
03-10-2011, 9:38 PM
I was looking at California's legal definition of a silencer:

# 12500. The term "silencer" as used in this chapter means any device or attachment of any kind designed, used, or intended for use in silencing, diminishing, or muffling the report of a firearm. The term "silencer" also includes any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for use in assembling a silencer or fabricating a silencer and any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication.

That got me thinking. Technically speaking, on a federal and state level, the actual "firearm" is the serialized receiver.

So, my question is wouldn't it be legal to make a firearm who's report is naturally quieter?

My idea is to make an integrally-suppressed-barrel a permanently attached piece of a receiver. It would be manufactured from scratch into such a receiver, with no "unsupressed" models available. Something similar to what is in the following picture:
http://i885.photobucket.com/albums/ac60/killmime1234/AR-SilencedConcepthalfscale.jpg

My thinking is that it could be legal because it isn't a device or attachment, but rather the actual "firearm" itself and furthermore, any report that comes from the firearm is the actual report of the firearm. If this is indeed legal, it would of course have to be designed and manufactured by someone with the correct FFL.

I'm hoping some of the lawyers or legalese speaking folks can chime in and let me know if I'm onto something. Or, if not, why?

Quiet
03-10-2011, 10:33 PM
Under Federal laws, a noise suppressor is a firearm [18 USC 921(a)(3)(C)] and subject to the National Firearm Act of 1934.

Your "integrally-suppressed-barrel" will need a $200 tax stamp from the BATFE, because it is considered a Title 2 firearm and subject to the National Firearms Act of 1934.


18 USC 921
(a) As used in this chapter—
(3) The term “firearm” means
(A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive;
(B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon;
(C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or
(D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.
(24) The terms “firearm silencer” and “firearm muffler” mean any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm, including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, and any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication.

jamesob
03-10-2011, 11:07 PM
the gamo whisper is your only legal suppressed rifle in california.

killmime1234
03-10-2011, 11:17 PM
Dang. Thanks, Quiet. I was really hoping I'd be on to something bullet-button big. Guess not. :(

Bhobbs
03-10-2011, 11:19 PM
A firearm that is built to be quite would be suppressed. IANAL but I would think that it would still be illegal unless you have the proper permit.

killmime1234
03-10-2011, 11:25 PM
Actually, after re-reading the Federal definition, I still think this might have a shot.
I'm not 100% convinced "any firearm muffler or firearm silencer" actually covers my idea.

Let's just say for the sake of argument I just decided to make a receiver with an integral barrel (unsuppressed) that's totally non removable and machined out of the same hunk of metal as the main part of the receiver. Legally, would the "barrel" portion of the receiver be considered a barrel? Or just an appendage of the receiver? My point was that if the barrel and integrated suppressor were just appendages of the receiver not parts of the firearm, then whatever report (no matter how quiet) came out of this firearm would be it's natural report. The California definition of a silencer is something that muffles the report of a firearm, if whatever comes out of this is the natural report, then it wouldn't be silenced.

ETA: It also wouldn't be a silencer itself, because it could not be used to muffle or suppress the sound of another firearm.

I guess to sum it up, my idea wasn't that this wouldn't be considered a firearm or not, but that it didn't actually fit the legal definition of a silencer. Or I could be interpreting the law incorrectly.

MASTERLAB
03-10-2011, 11:53 PM
from what you are saying, all you would need is to have the suppressor intrigal to the reciever, you could still have a removeable barrel, may make it easier to machine

dexterbase
03-11-2011, 12:01 AM
Having the bullet /gas pass through the baffle system before the barrell would render any silencer useless.

G lock
03-11-2011, 12:03 AM
if this was legal, a ruger mk 2 intergally supressed tacsol barrel would be legal to have in cali

N6ATF
03-11-2011, 12:37 AM
I was just thinking this when I came across a Ruger 10/22 internally suppressed.

ghost
03-11-2011, 8:07 AM
for a common guy in ca good luck.

Anchors
03-11-2011, 9:47 AM
I see your point, but it will never fly.

Obviously some firearms are naturally quieter than others and there is no legally defined decibel limit, but it would have to be a whole new concept and design that looked and operated nothing like any firearm on the market. Using any of the normal approaches to suppression would likely be considered a suppressor.

As a side note, I love California PC, because you can see that they got all their information on firearms from movies.
"No 1 can hav a silencer, cuz it makes ur gunshots lyke totalai silent when ur killng pplz"

killmime1234
03-11-2011, 11:46 AM
Eh, maybe it'll get someone else's gears going to come up with a more solid idea. It was at least worth a post.

Kharn
03-11-2011, 12:40 PM
With any form of baffles or containment structure around a vented barrel, you would be hard pressed to prove it is not a suppressor.

stix213
03-11-2011, 12:49 PM
Having the bullet /gas pass through the baffle system before the barrell would render any silencer useless.

I would think if a firearm were developed with an elongated receiver with the suppressor integrated, with the barrel mounted further back into the receiver, and the barrel significantly ported within the receiver to allow for mating with the integrated suppressor, you could be good to go. You could still have a removable barrel also.

This wouldn't be an AR anymore though, it would have to be a new firearm design. You could certainly come up with a unique receiver design where the receiver itself extends nearly the entire length of the barrel, or at least far enough to let your round get up to speed before reaching the porting/suppressor.

Also whether the ATF classifies the firearm as a silencer is irrelevant, since federal law still lets you pay to play. The CA definition of a silencer does not reference the federal laws or the ATF.

jester
03-11-2011, 1:10 PM
I'd like something more along the lines of a Delisle..

killmime1234
03-11-2011, 1:17 PM
I would think if a firearm were developed with an elongated receiver with the suppressor integrated, with the barrel mounted further back into the receiver, and the barrel significantly ported within the receiver to allow for mating with the integrated suppressor, you could be good to go. You could still have a removable barrel also.

This wouldn't be an AR anymore though, it would have to be a new firearm design. You could certainly come up with a unique receiver design where the receiver itself extends nearly the entire length of the barrel, or at least far enough to let your round get up to speed before reaching the porting/suppressor.

Also whether the ATF classifies the firearm as a silencer is irrelevant, since federal law still lets you pay to play. The CA definition of a silencer does not reference the federal laws or the ATF.

If I understand you correctly, you're talking about something along the lines of this:
http://i885.photobucket.com/albums/ac60/killmime1234/IntegrallySupressedReceiver2.jpg
Yes?

I think that's another good idea assuming there was a way to port some of the gasses back to cycle another round. Of course, if not, I could live with it being a bolt action. :43:

ETA: I can't find a federal definition of "silencer" so I can't fight it without knowing what it is. Does anyone know what the Federal definition is? I figured starting at the state level would sort of get the ball rolling.

stix213
03-11-2011, 2:22 PM
If I understand you correctly, you're talking about something along the lines of this:
http://i885.photobucket.com/albums/ac60/killmime1234/IntegrallySupressedReceiver2.jpg
Yes?

I think that's another good idea assuming there was a way to port some of the gasses back to cycle another round. Of course, if not, I could live with it being a bolt action. :43:

ETA: I can't find a federal definition of "silencer" so I can't fight it without knowing what it is. Does anyone know what the Federal definition is? I figured starting at the state level would sort of get the ball rolling.

I'm thinking to have some non-ported barrel length to allow the round to get up to speed, then porting as you have shown still within the receiver. But overall pretty much what I was suggesting. You could have the porting for the integrated suppressor begin immediately after a DI or piston gas port. The receiver would be very long of course, and may itself integrate the foregrip probably about where the internal suppressor lives.

(damn I need to hurry up and patent this ****! :p )

j-rod
03-11-2011, 3:01 PM
I like your idea of it all being one piece but I think you'd be hard pressed to say mill it out of one piece... Which then causes it to be a silencer attached to your firearm... unless I'm missing something.

SixPointEight
03-11-2011, 3:05 PM
I would say it's still a device that limits the sound. But then again, I don't know nothing. If I weld a muffler into a pipe so it's all one piece, the muffler is still a device that muffles the sound.

zhyla
03-11-2011, 3:19 PM
PC 12500 seems to hinge on intent. And it's surprisingly vague. Wouldn't ear muffs count as a "device or attachment of any kind designed, used, or intended for use in silencing, diminishing, or muffling the report of a firearm"?

It's probably not the right time, but this seems like something we could go after some day. As to your integral suppression design... gah, you really want to risk getting charged with constructing a silencer?

stix213
03-11-2011, 3:26 PM
PC 12500 seems to hinge on intent. And it's surprisingly vague. Wouldn't ear muffs count as a "device or attachment of any kind designed, used, or intended for use in silencing, diminishing, or muffling the report of a firearm"?


Now this is the part I keep thinking about. Since the receiver IS the firearm, can a firearm ever be "designed, used, or intended for use in silencing, diminishing, or muffling the report of a firearm"??? The amount of sound it makes stock is how much sound it makes. It can't silence itself, since their is not even a louder version.

(I'm not building one FYI - this thread just got me really thinking about how it might be done)

dantodd
03-11-2011, 3:30 PM
So the question becomes how quietly can you design a firearm to be without crossing a line? Surely you won't get it as quiet as a suppressed weapon but maybe quieter than a non-optimized firearm.

InGrAM
03-11-2011, 3:32 PM
If the ATF even thanks you can turn a "fake can" into a suppressor its illegal to sell, manufacture, install on a firearm. At least in CA.

I had this problem with my GSG-5.
I had to return the can it came with for one that was "not capable of being turned into a silencer" The store I bought it from took my old can and gave me one without a hallow cavity. No physical difference just not hallow on the inside of the can.

Good luck, but I doubt it would fly in this great state of ours.

djleisure
03-11-2011, 3:32 PM
And you can put it in a package like this! (bonus points to anyone that can identify the rifle)

http://i1006.photobucket.com/albums/af189/dj_leisure/rifle.jpg

I like the "outside the box" (or "inside the box" in this case) thinking! Always a good idea to kick around ideas like this...

CaliforniaCarry
03-11-2011, 3:38 PM
Firstly, IANAL.

I would say it's still a device that limits the sound. But then again, I don't know nothing. If I weld a muffler into a pipe so it's all one piece, the muffler is still a device that muffles the sound.

That's true, but we're dealing with the ATF, where the current "state" isn't always what's most important. Sometimes it's the process, e.g., put a buttstock on a handgun. Now it's a rifle. Now take the stock off. Is it a handgun again? No, it's an SBR, even though it's really a handgun. You can quite literally have two molecularly identical "handguns" sitting next to each other, one legal, one not, based on the process used to arrive at their final configuration. To put this in the context of your analogy, welding the muffler on after the fact might still make it a muffler, but what if you built the muffler into very structure of the the pipe from the start, such that the pipe couldn't function properly without the "muffler" area of itself? Would it still be a muffler in the eyes of the law, or just a very quiet pipe?

I think this idea has merit. The way the law is precisely worded matters. Terms have a definition, and you can sometimes exploit that in unexpected ways. Take bullet buttons for example. Any sane average Joe, upon watching me drop the mag from my BB-equipped AR, is going answer "YES" when I ask "Do you think this magazine is detachable?" I mean heck, I just "detached" it from the rifle. But by the definition of the law, it's not, and that's all that matters.

Another example is crank-fire automatics (Gatling guns). A machinegun is essentially defined as a firearm that can fire more than 1 round with 1 pull of the trigger. What if you build a device that pulls the trigger for you while you move it continuously, rather than discretely? First instinct naturally wants to say "MACHINEGUN, ZOMG RUN!" But upon closer inspection, you can find them for sale at Cabela's: http://www.cabelas.com/10-22-accessories-gatling-gun-kit.shtml These are even legal in CA.

There are two main obstacles I see here:

ATF can pretty much arbitrarily rule on what's defined as what, without regard for logic. Even if the logic makes sense, if ATF doesn't like it, they can define something a different way. What's funny is that they don't always do this when you think they might, e.g., I personally would have expected Gatling guns to get redefined as MGs a long time ago.
This might be technically infeasible because, the way I see it, in order to be legally plausible the thing has to be a fully-functional suppressor without any extra parts. I don't think this is doable with today's supression technology. Suppressors usually require multiple baffles that have to be removable for cleaning.


Then there's the question of whether this is OK under CA law. Even if the ATF still considers it to be a suppressor, it might slip past CA's silly laws. In that case, a CA resident might still be able to legally own one as long as they did so legally at a Federal level (e.g., NFA trust).

Flopper
03-11-2011, 3:39 PM
So the question becomes how quietly can you design a firearm to be without crossing a line? Surely you won't get it as quiet as a suppressed weapon but maybe quieter than a non-optimized firearm.

This whole thread just illustrates how ridiculous the suppressor laws are on its face.

They're totally arbitrary; how quiet is "too quiet?"

Flopper
03-11-2011, 3:39 PM
And you can put it in a package like this! (bonus points to anyone that can identify the rifle)

http://i1006.photobucket.com/albums/af189/dj_leisure/rifle.jpg

I like the "outside the box" (or "inside the box" in this case) thinking! Always a good idea to kick around ideas like this...

G11

Ubermcoupe
03-11-2011, 4:13 PM
HK G11. (Shoot I was too late)

&

Are you thinking something like an SD type rifle or MK II/III? designed to be silent?

stix213
03-11-2011, 4:27 PM
I was just thinking there could be a second market for a product like this. Free state people who would buy a suppressor already. I bet you could get a firearm extremely quiet if it had an integrated receiver suppressor, and then you attached a regular suppressor to the end of the barrel. hmmmm

Kharn
03-11-2011, 4:38 PM
This whole thread just illustrates how ridiculous the suppressor laws are on its face.

They're totally arbitrary; how quiet is "too quiet?"

1db reduction is the working definition

CHS
03-11-2011, 5:10 PM
1db reduction is the working definition

Sad part is, I can get probably 15-20db reduction in sound in my bolt-action .22 just by changing ammo.

Can ammo be considered a silencer?? :)

killmime1234
03-11-2011, 5:16 PM
1db reduction is the working definition

Correct, but my argument is that whatever sound comes out of the receiver is the "stock sound." So, it would arguably be legal to design an entirely new firearm that is naturally quieter.

The displayed designs are just ideas of how it could be done. I wouldn't try to build it at home, of course; but if it could be ok'd by the DOJ and BATF and then produced by a licensed firearm manufacturer, I'd feel comfortable buying one.

ke6guj
03-11-2011, 7:17 PM
I'll give you the example of the MP5SD-type firearms. In the past, people had semi-auto MP5-type firearms converted into MGs with the "built-in" SD-configuration silencer. ATF used to allow them to be transfered on one tax-stamp for the MG. Now, you have to transfer it on two stamps, one for the MG and one for the silencer, two stamps for one receiver.

Quiet
03-11-2011, 7:29 PM
I'll give you the example of the MP5SD-type firearms. In the past, people had semi-auto MP5-type firearms converted into MGs with the "built-in" SD-configuration silencer. ATF used to allow them to be transfered on one tax-stamp for the MG. Now, you have to transfer it on two stamps, one for the MG and one for the silencer, two stamps for one receiver.

Semi-auto only versions of the MP5SD are also transfered with two stamps.
One stamp for it being a SBR and another stamp for the silencer.

Anchors
03-11-2011, 7:32 PM
So the question becomes how quietly can you design a firearm to be without crossing a line? Surely you won't get it as quiet as a suppressed weapon but maybe quieter than a non-optimized firearm.

That is what I was trying to say.
Can you just design a whole new firearm/caliber and get it as quiet as possible?
It won't be as quiet as all suppressed weapons, but a lot of suppressed weapons are hardly quiet.


Another example is crank-fire automatics (Gatling guns). A machinegun is essentially defined as a firearm that can fire more than 1 round with 1 pull of the trigger. What if you build a device that pulls the trigger for you while you move it continuously, rather than discretely? First instinct naturally wants to say "MACHINEGUN, ZOMG RUN!" But upon closer inspection, you can find them for sale at Cabela's: http://www.cabelas.com/10-22-accessories-gatling-gun-kit.shtml These are even legal in CA.

Wait, so can we build Gatlings that aren't .22lr?

Omg. Why hasn't someone mass produced these in something .223 or greater?

Quiet
03-11-2011, 7:39 PM
I Another example is crank-fire automatics (Gatling guns). A machinegun is essentially defined as a firearm that can fire more than 1 round with 1 pull of the trigger. What if you build a device that pulls the trigger for you while you move it continuously, rather than discretely? First instinct naturally wants to say "MACHINEGUN, ZOMG RUN!" But upon closer inspection, you can find them for sale at Cabela's: http://www.cabelas.com/10-22-accessories-gatling-gun-kit.shtml These are even legal in CA.
Wait, so can we build Gatlings that aren't .22lr?

Omg. Why hasn't someone mass produced these in something .223 or greater?

Because it's not CA legal.

The crank is a "multiburst trigger activator", which makes it a felony to import/manufacture/possess in CA.


Penal Code 12020
(a) Any person in this state who does any of the following is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or in the state prison:
(1) Manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives, lends, or possesses any cane gun or wallet gun, any undetectable firearm, any firearm which is not immediately recognizable as a firearm, any camouflaging firearm container, any ammunition which contains or consists of any flechette dart, any bullet containing or carrying an explosive agent, any ballistic knife, any multiburst trigger activator, any nunchaku, any short-barreled shotgun, any short-barreled rifle, any metal knuckles, any belt buckle knife, any leaded cane, any zip gun, any shuriken, any unconventional pistol, any lipstick case knife, any cane sword, any shobi-zue, any air gauge knife, any writing pen knife, any metal military practice handgrenade or metal replica handgrenade, or any instrument or weapon of the kind commonly known as a blackjack, slungshot, billy, sandclub, sap, or sandbag.
(c)(23) As used in this section, a "multiburst trigger activator" means one of the following devices:
(A) A device designed or redesigned to be attached to a semiautomatic firearm which allows the firearm to discharge two or more shots in a burst by activating the device.
(B) A manual or power-driven trigger activating device constructed and designed so that when attached to a semiautomatic firearm it increases the rate of fire of that firearm.

ke6guj
03-11-2011, 7:41 PM
Another example is crank-fire automatics (Gatling guns). A machinegun is essentially defined as a firearm that can fire more than 1 round with 1 pull of the trigger. What if you build a device that pulls the trigger for you while you move it continuously, rather than discretely? First instinct naturally wants to say "MACHINEGUN, ZOMG RUN!" But upon closer inspection, you can find them for sale at Cabela's: http://www.cabelas.com/10-22-accessories-gatling-gun-kit.shtml These are even legal in CA.
that isn't a gatling gun, and how are they legal in CA?

12020(c)(23) As used in this section, a "multiburst trigger activator" means one of the following devices:
(A) A device designed or redesigned to be attached to a semiautomatic firearm which allows the firearm to discharge two or more shots in a burst by activating the device.
(B) A manual or power-driven trigger activating device constructed and designed so that when attached to a semiautomatic firearm it increases the rate of fire of that firearm.

edit: too slow:D

Anchors
03-11-2011, 7:49 PM
Okay, so the guy who posted that was wrong about their CA legality.

But in Arizona I can have a crank driven rifle caliber gun?
(I just also realized it wasn't a gatling, which has multiple rotating barrels).

But is is still a "gat", dawg.

killmime1234
03-11-2011, 10:30 PM
I'll give you the example of the MP5SD-type firearms. In the past, people had semi-auto MP5-type firearms converted into MGs with the "built-in" SD-configuration silencer. ATF used to allow them to be transfered on one tax-stamp for the MG. Now, you have to transfer it on two stamps, one for the MG and one for the silencer, two stamps for one receiver.

In that case, though, the argument the government could use for the mp5 is that there is a standard model that had it's own "report." Any version of that gun (using the same receiver) that is any quieter, could legally be found to be silenced. By that standard, the SD model has a silencer.

If we were to design a brand new, never before seen receiver that was naturally quiet by today's average firearm standard (by means of whatever integral design that redistributes gasses more evenly), the "report" that came out of it would be it's own standard report.

It'd be the same as if the mp5 was just made as a very quiet gun from the start, by setting up the solid receiver piece in a more "gas expansion" friendly manner.

ilawson
03-12-2011, 8:36 AM
hmm...the trigger activator is only illegal if attached to a semi automatic firearm, what if it's attached to my finger?

killmime1234
03-12-2011, 10:31 AM
hmm...the trigger activator is only illegal if attached to a semi automatic firearm, what if it's attached to my finger?

See, now there's the outside-the-box kinda thinking we need. Like some kind of reciprocating solenoid finger attachment?

ilawson
03-13-2011, 11:09 AM
my thoughts exactly...

motorhead
03-13-2011, 12:16 PM
atf's view of such things is purely subjective. you might have a valid challenge WHEN they declare your design to be a supressor.

uzigalil
03-13-2011, 12:21 PM
Have any of you heard of Captive piston guns

CSACANNONEER
03-13-2011, 12:36 PM
the gamo whisper is your only legal suppressed rifle in california.

That's not true. Gamo also make a "Silent Cat". But, even then, you need to look at California law and see if an air gun is included in Ca's definition of "firearm".

if this was legal, a ruger mk 2 intergally supressed tacsol barrel would be legal to have in cali

Totally different. An intergral supressor on a MK II is part of the barrel and not the receiver. They are two different pieces.

I'll give you the example of the MP5SD-type firearms. In the past, people had semi-auto MP5-type firearms converted into MGs with the "built-in" SD-configuration silencer. ATF used to allow them to be transfered on one tax-stamp for the MG. Now, you have to transfer it on two stamps, one for the MG and one for the silencer, two stamps for one receiver.

Again, the intragral surpressor on a MP5SD is not part of the receiver.

woodey
03-13-2011, 1:25 PM
In that case, though, the argument the government could use for the mp5 is that there is a standard model that had it's own "report." Any version of that gun (using the same receiver) that is any quieter, could legally be found to be silenced. By that standard, the SD model has a silencer.

If we were to design a brand new, never before seen receiver that was naturally quiet by today's average firearm standard (by means of whatever integral design that redistributes gasses more evenly), the "report" that came out of it would be it's own standard report.

It'd be the same as if the mp5 was just made as a very quiet gun from the start, by setting up the solid receiver piece in a more "gas expansion" friendly manner.

Now you get into California "Zip Gun" law

B Strong
03-13-2011, 1:30 PM
That is what I was trying to say.
Can you just design a whole new firearm/caliber and get it as quiet as possible?It won't be as quiet as all suppressed weapons, but a lot of suppressed weapons are hardly quiet.



Wait, so can we build Gatlings that aren't .22lr?

Omg. Why hasn't someone mass produced these in something .223 or greater?

Sure, but if the same cartridge fired from a conventional design, let's say a T-C Contender, is louder, there's a high probability that your "quiet" firearm would be classified as an NFA weapon or device.

B Strong
03-13-2011, 1:32 PM
Have any of you heard of Captive piston guns

Absolutely - but when have the CP rounds been available for civilian sales in the U.S.?

Jeepers
03-13-2011, 1:34 PM
my question is how are you going to get around the BATFE ruling that a single baffle=suppressor no mater if there is a tube or not ....maybe spend some time over @ silencertalk

woodey
03-13-2011, 1:37 PM
I had an idea for a legal suppressor. It would be a Non-solid metal barrel with a highly micro ported liner. It would begin to bleed off gasses 6 to 10 in off the chamber with the ports getting increasingly larger the nearer to muzzle.
http://www.alliedfilters.com/silencers-mufflers.htm
It is the barrel & not an attachment. You could clean it in a sonic cleaner.
What do you think?

CSACANNONEER
03-13-2011, 1:43 PM
Wait, so can we build Gatlings that aren't .22lr?

Omg. Why hasn't someone mass produced these in something .223 or greater?

Real gatling guns are legal in Ca (not the 10-22/mini 14 types though). If you are looking for a .223 set up, you can use 2 mini 14s and a "gatling gun" kit for them. If you want a real, center fire, gatling gun, they are still being produced. But, not mass produced since, they are expensive.

ubet
03-13-2011, 1:54 PM
I think you have a good idea. BUT, when you shoot the barrel out, you are going to end up throwing the whole thing away. IF the barrel is part of the reciever. I think you are better off doing it, in a brand new caliber (design your own case, bullet diameter), bolt gun, single shot, with a 16" plus barrel. You could make it, so it would take a common bolt, ie remmy 700, win70 etc. But it might have to be an all in one, its all connected, bolt, stock, barrel are all ONE piece, nothing can detach.

On the caliber, maybe a 300winmag, necked up to something in .375 or 408. Push the shoulder back .25", blow the case out a little through the body. Might have to change the shoulder angle too. I dont see why it would be "illegal", but I am not some numb nutt in Sac without enough to do (politicians and ca doj)

CSACANNONEER
03-13-2011, 2:04 PM
I think you have a good idea. BUT, when you shoot the barrel out, you are going to end up throwing the whole thing away. IF the barrel is part of the reciever. I think you are better off doing it, in a brand new caliber (design your own case, bullet diameter), bolt gun, single shot, with a 16" plus barrel. You could make it, so it would take a common bolt, ie remmy 700, win70 etc. But it might have to be an all in one, its all connected, bolt, stock, barrel are all ONE piece, nothing can detach.

On the caliber, maybe a 300winmag, necked up to something in .375 or 408. Push the shoulder back .25", blow the case out a little through the body. Might have to change the shoulder angle too. I dont see why it would be "illegal", but I am not some numb nutt in Sac without enough to do (politicians and ca doj)

One could make a reciever where the surpressor is part of the receiver and, the barrel inserts into it. That would allow for barrel replacements. But, how many people actually shoot out barrels? Yea, I know a few too but, most people just don't shoot that much.

SixPointEight
03-13-2011, 2:11 PM
One could make a reciever where the surpressor is part of the receiver and, the barrel inserts into it. That would allow for barrel replacements. But, how many people actually shoot out barrels? Yea, I know a few too but, most people just don't shoot that much.

I think this would be far easier to manufacture for a handgun. I slept on this a couple nights, and a silencer baffle system would be easier to integrate into a handgun receiver. Think...m9. Barrel's fixed. Frame is fixed. Slide moves... Barrel would remove just like normal, and you could get a pretty tight tolerance between the silencer and the barrel.

Just tossing that one out there.

killmime1234
03-13-2011, 2:17 PM
Now you get into California "Zip Gun" law

In order for something to be defined as a "zip gun" it has to meet ALL of four criteria. One of the criteria is this:

It was not originally designed by someone with a firearms manufacturing license. [paraphrased]

Since my idea would be manufactured by someone with the correct license, it wouldn't meet that criteria and would therefore not be a zip gun.



In regard to the barrel issue, we had sort of covered it on the first page where we decided it would be better to just have the "suppression" portion as part of the receiver and have a detachable barrel that could be placed within that part of the receiver. (see my second illustration on the first page.)

I'm sort of considering emailing the BATF and DOJ regarding the design (probably just for s***s and giggles), but I wanted to refine my argument here where I have a lot of intelligent people to critique my idea.

SixPointEight
03-13-2011, 2:19 PM
Might want to call the silencer baffles something like...accuracy baffles. Flash hider vs compensator lol

383green
03-13-2011, 2:32 PM
Can ammo be considered a silencer?? :)

Yes...

Have any of you heard of Captive piston guns

... and that's where ammo can be considered a silencer. Maybe a year or so, I read about Soviet captive-piston guns in Small Arms Review. As designed, BATFE considers each round of their ammo to be a suppressor, requiring its own tax stamp.

http://world.guns.ru/ammunition/russian-special-cartridges-e.html

Anchors
03-13-2011, 3:50 PM
Sure, but if the same cartridge fired from a conventional design, let's say a T-C Contender, is louder, there's a high probability that your "quiet" firearm would be classified as an NFA weapon or device.

That is why I said create a whole new caliber for it. Then there is nothing to compare it to.
Are they really going to make a firearm of the same caliber just to test it?

Real gatling guns are legal in Ca (not the 10-22/mini 14 types though). If you are looking for a .223 set up, you can use 2 mini 14s and a "gatling gun" kit for them. If you want a real, center fire, gatling gun, they are still being produced. But, not mass produced since, they are expensive.

That sounds really fun.
I learn new things everyday.
Flame throwers, gatling guns, and crank driven firearms aren't illegal under federal law.

As designed, BATFE considers each round of their ammo to be a suppressor, requiring its own tax stamp.
Wow.
They would.

50BMGBOB
03-13-2011, 3:51 PM
Wait, so can we build Gatlings that aren't .22lr?

Omg. Why hasn't someone mass produced these in something .223 or greater?

Many Gatling guns are built in larger calibers. I have seen besides 22LR, and of course 45-70, them built for 45LC, 45ACP, 38spl, .223, 7.62x39 as well as others. But a cheap Gatling gun start at about $15,000 new and many reach over $100,000, Even used, they can bring like new prices, it is what some would say, a limited market. And don't forget if you want to shoot it, the cost of ammo.

ke6guj
03-13-2011, 3:58 PM
Totally different. An intergral supressor on a MK II is part of the barrel and not the receiver. They are two different pieces.



Again, the intragral surpressor on a MP5SD is not part of the receiver.

Thats nothing but a weld away from being part of the receiver if that being part of the receiver made it exempt from the silencer law.

Kharn
03-13-2011, 4:18 PM
Correct, but my argument is that whatever sound comes out of the receiver is the "stock sound." So, it would arguably be legal to design an entirely new firearm that is naturally quieter.

The displayed designs are just ideas of how it could be done. I wouldn't try to build it at home, of course; but if it could be ok'd by the DOJ and BATF and then produced by a licensed firearm manufacturer, I'd feel comfortable buying one.

Baffles or chambers to capture the expanding gases would definitely be ruled a silencer, some design elements would be considered taxable regardless of what firearm they are integrated on.

CSACANNONEER
03-13-2011, 6:09 PM
Thats nothing but a weld away from being part of the receiver if that being part of the receiver made it exempt from the silencer law.

An SBR is just a weld away from being a title one rifle.

I'm still up on the fence about the legality of this. I almost think that the surpressor/receiver would need to be manufactured as ONE PIECE and not have any parts which could be removed or taken apart for cleaning. I don't know enough about surpressors to know if this is even possible. But, it would make it so that the ATF could contend that a separate baffle or other part would be considered a surpressor and would need a tax stamp.

killmime1234
03-13-2011, 6:31 PM
An SBR is just a weld away from being a title one rifle.

I'm still up on the fence about the legality of this. I almost think that the surpressor/receiver would need to be manufactured as ONE PIECE and not have any parts which could be removed or taken apart for cleaning. I don't know enough about surpressors to know if this is even possible. But, it would make it so that the ATF could contend that a separate baffle or other part would be considered a surpressor and would need a tax stamp.

I definitely agree with that.

I've never serviced a silencer so I can't be 100% sure what it entails but I imagine there could be an effective liquid cleaning solution that we could just dip/soak it in so that the internals would be cleaned out. Sort of like "break free." That way it wouldn't require disassembly. That way all the baffles could be welded in permanently.

Also, here's revision 3 of the plan:
http://i885.photobucket.com/albums/ac60/killmime1234/IntegrallySupressedReceiverRev3Annotated.jpg

Also, stix213, if somehow this concept beats the incredibly overwhelming odds against it and gets made, I'll make sure you get your due credit. I just wanted to note that. That said, I won't hold my breath about any government agency deeming this legal.

ubet
03-13-2011, 6:33 PM
When a gun is fired. Their are 3 noises. 1) the firing pin striking the primer 2)the ignition in the cartridge 3) the bullet entering the atmosphere. Number 3 is where suppressors come into play. It muffles the bullet (crack) from the sound barrier being broke. I am not sure if the inside of the diameter is bigger than the bullet itself. But it absorbs the sound through baffles, and displaces it inside the suppressor. Your "noise cancelling device" would have to be at the end of the barrel, however it is integrated, most likely ported to allow the sound into the baffles. You cant do it before the end of the barrel do to the fact that it will be catastrophic to accuracy (maybe your life) if you have the bullet leaving the cartridge, entering the rifling (the are between this is called jump into the lands), then leaving rifling "jumping" then trying to renter rifling, NOT gonna work. You cant have it anywhere other than the end, because the crack of the bullet entering the atmosphere is what makes the biggest noise. So, it WOULD have to be integrated INTO the barrel, and for it to "not be attachable/detachable" it WOULD have to be part of the reciever. When the barrel is done, so is your "noise cancelling device".

You are going to have such a huge expense in making this, that it wont be worth your effort.

One last question, why are you wanting to do this? I really hope this is not for nefarious purposes.

Csacannonneerr, I shoot barrels out. A lot of people shoot barrels out and probably dont know it, because they arent demanding the type of accuracy that you can really track it or they just ARENT tracking their accuracy. Most anyone who shoot a "tactical rifle" figures barrels are consumable and just a cost of shooting.

yellowfin
03-13-2011, 6:51 PM
3) the bullet entering the atmosphere. Number 3 is where suppressors come into play. It muffles the bullet (crack) from the sound barrier being broke. Incorrect. A suppressor reduces the muzzle report, which is the rapid expansion the propellant gas as it exits the barrel after the bullet. The suppressor is a chamber for trapping the gasses to contain and redirect the expansion. Supersonic crack of the bullet is totally irrelevant.

woodey
03-13-2011, 8:22 PM
Incorrect. A suppressor reduces the muzzle report, which is the rapid expansion the propellant gas as it exits the barrel after the bullet. The suppressor is a chamber for trapping the gasses to contain and redirect the expansion. Supersonic crack of the bullet is totally irrelevant.

Correct, thats why shooting sub sonic round like the 22, 9mm & 45acp are more practical to suppress. The 22 being the essayist as it has the least amount of expanding gasses. The difference between a 6 pistol barrel & 16 rifle barrel is huge in the amount of sound you notice. Use a 30" barrel & the barrel it self act's like a suppressor in allowing the gases to expand & cool before being released add porting & you will get better results.

ke6guj
03-13-2011, 8:34 PM
An SBR is just a weld away from being a title one rifle.

I'm still up on the fence about the legality of this. I almost think that the surpressor/receiver would need to be manufactured as ONE PIECE and not have any parts which could be removed or taken apart for cleaning. I don't know enough about surpressors to know if this is even possible. But, it would make it so that the ATF could contend that a separate baffle or other part would be considered a surpressor and would need a tax stamp.I could easily see a one-piece Ruger MkIII "bull-barrel" receiver that was hollowed out at the front to contain the baffles and then the endcap welded on. In that case, the suppressor would be part of the receiver. you could even weld in each baffle as it was installed, if need be.

ke6guj
03-13-2011, 8:39 PM
I definitely agree with that.

I've never serviced a silencer so I can't be 100% sure what it entails but I imagine there could be an effective liquid cleaning solution that we could just dip/soak it in so that the internals would be cleaned out. Sort of like "break free." That way it wouldn't require disassembly. That way all the baffles could be welded in permanently.

not for .22s, there isn't. .22s shoot dirty and will clog up a suppressor pretty quickly. A major problem with them is that molten lead (from the firing) will deposit itself on the baffles and isn't easily removed. .22 suppressors will often end up gaining significant amounts of lead that won't come out. But, if I could have a legal suppressor without paperwork, I would not have a major problem if it ended up needing to be disposed of after 5-10k rounds.

Afterburnt
03-13-2011, 9:23 PM
You guys need to stop, you are gonna get a whole class of firearms banned! eg.

PC. xyzlmnop: Any firearm that vents propellant gasses in to the receiver for the purpose of dirtying up the works and suppressing report is really bad dangerous and illegal.

Afterburnt
03-13-2011, 9:29 PM
Hmmm, maybe you could get away with a really big AR diameter gas tube that vents to another county?

Sorry abut that, I am getting sleepy

ubet
03-13-2011, 11:38 PM
Incorrect. A suppressor reduces the muzzle report, which is the rapid expansion the propellant gas as it exits the barrel after the bullet. The suppressor is a chamber for trapping the gasses to contain and redirect the expansion. Supersonic crack of the bullet is totally irrelevant.

Welp, learned something new today. It would still have to be at the end of the barrel though.

yellowfin
03-14-2011, 7:09 AM
See http://www.aaccanu.com for more educational information on suppressors.

Cali-V
03-14-2011, 7:43 AM
I remember seeing a guy selling a super long barrel, which because of it's length was reported to be a natural suppressor...

CHS
03-14-2011, 7:52 AM
I remember seeing a guy selling a super long barrel, which because of it's length was reported to be a natural suppressor...

There's a "quiet barrel" add-on for shotguns which makes them extremely quiet.

It's basically a 3-foot long choke tube that has hundreds of very tiny little holes bored in it to vent off gases.

Tom Knapp used one for a demo at Triple-B clays a couple years ago that I went to. It was VERY effective.

And not a silencer according to the ATF because it's just a barrel.

woodey
03-14-2011, 8:34 AM
There's a "quiet barrel" add-on for shotguns which makes them extremely quiet.

It's basically a 3-foot long choke tube that has hundreds of very tiny little holes bored in it to vent off gases.

Tom Knapp used one for a demo at Triple-B clays a couple years ago that I went to. It was VERY effective.

And not a silencer according to the ATF because it's just a barrel.

I picked up a couple of those but have yet to try them. I saw a show where a guys was teaching kids to duck hunt with those & they kind of whistle.

Cali-V
03-14-2011, 9:54 AM
That sounds like the product I saw...

tozan
03-14-2011, 10:19 AM
Have any of you heard of Captive piston guns

We built some Captive piston guns when I worked for Knight Armament in the 80's they made no sound at all and when we inquired at ATF it was not a silencer by definition. I guess they changed their mind later... lol We were also looking at building them using only plastic composites for the entire gun.


I think one legal way if you wanted a quieter 22lr is to make it a gas piston gun the gas used to drive the piston would make the report much quieter and being part of the gun design it would not be a silencer by definition.

killmime1234
03-14-2011, 7:59 PM
One last question, why are you wanting to do this? I really hope this is not for nefarious purposes.


Definitely not. If I wanted a silent weapon for something illegal, I would not be trying to find a legal excuse to have one.

I want it because I think the law regarding them is total BS, and they serve a number of legitimate purposes: hearing protection, neighborly courtesy, etc.

Also, I could see extending the receiver to the end of the barrel. I still think the ported barrel could work within an expansion chamber, however it could be moved to the very end of the barrel. I would ideally like this to be a rifle design so we'd be looking at a ~23"+ receiver to facilitate the 16" barrel length.

Even if this goes nowhere, it's fun to discuss. And who knows, it might prompt somebody else to take it a whole different direction and give us something even better.

CHS
03-14-2011, 9:34 PM
One last question, why are you wanting to do this? I really hope this is not for nefarious purposes.


Why on earth would you even ask something like this?

What nefarious purposes are there for wanting to get around a piece of unconstitutional law (NFA) in order to create a piece of safety equipment?

Please tell me you're not one of those who believes the hollywood "silencer" propaganda and stereotypes.

383green
03-14-2011, 10:12 PM
We built some Captive piston guns when I worked for Knight Armament in the 80's they made no sound at all and when we inquired at ATF it was not a silencer by definition. I guess they changed their mind later... lol


I should point out that I don't have any solid citation behind my comment about BATFE considering captive-piston rounds to each be a taxable suppressor; that's just what I recall hearing somewhere, possibly in the Small Arms Review article where I first learned about that type of firearm. It's entirely possible that some common knowledge about what is or isn't a restricted suppressor under the NFA is incorrect, just as there was a lot of incorrect common knowledge about CA's AW laws several years ago. I would be happy to be proven wrong about the legal status of captive-piston rounds.

woodey
03-15-2011, 5:44 AM
Here is my captive piston supperessed 25cal rim fire gun, works great & very quite.
http://www.us.hilti.com/fstore/holus/techlib/docs/tool_schematics/dx/dx451_schematic.pdf
The gasses are supperessed in the forward grip vented downward out of the barrel.
http://www.eastcoasttoolsma.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=5&products_id=8888

CaliforniaCarry
03-15-2011, 2:51 PM
Because it's not CA legal.

The crank is a "multiburst trigger activator", which makes it a felony to import/manufacture/possess in CA.


Yep, I made the jump from "crank" to "gatling gun" a little too quickly there; that was my bad. Thanks for the correction. As already stated elsewhere in the thread, these kits to turn otherwise ordinary rifles are illegal in CA (though they are legal at a federal level). However, proper Gatling guns are legal.

The point, however, was to illustrate that sometimes the strict technical definition is all that matters, as long as ATF doesn't redefine it. Crank fire = not considered a MG by the ATF, all reason aside (I mean seriously, how is a Gatling gun not a machinegun by any ordinary definition?). We might be able to circumvent the suppressor restrictions in a similar manner. I simply don't want to discourage outside-the-box thinking just because a few people are immediately pessimistic about whether such ideas can work. These same thought processes brought us bullet buttons and other goodies.

B Strong
03-15-2011, 4:52 PM
That is why I said create a whole new caliber for it. Then there is nothing to compare it to.
Are they really going to make a firearm of the same caliber just to test it?


That sounds really fun.
I learn new things everyday.
Flame throwers, gatling guns, and crank driven firearms aren't illegal under federal law.


Wow.
They would.

The .300 whisper from AAC started out as the .30 Apache, in a T.C. contender.

You can't assume that a new cartridge wouldn't find it's way into differently configured firearms than the designer intended - case in point, the .50 BMG.
really, you have another interesting brain teaser that's a no-goer real world, at least with the N.F.A. as currently enforced.

G lock
03-15-2011, 8:00 PM
what about a traditional suppressor ( with the baffles and such) just without the end cap? i think it would reduce muzzle flash and noise because gases are slowed but also redirect the sound forward

gun end . ll=l<l<l<l<l<l=== . muzzle end

Kharn
03-16-2011, 8:04 AM
what about a traditional suppressor ( with the baffles and such) just without the end cap? i think it would reduce muzzle flash and noise because gases are slowed but also redirect the sound forward

gun end . ll=l<l<l<l<l<l=== . muzzle endStill regulated as a silencer under federal law.