BCM Mod O comp for featureless?

[shooter777]

[DLA]

I previously asked the same question. Muzzle brake won't be questioned. Compensator is on that fine line that you don't want to teeter on. Unless you're putting an ar maglock then go for it.

[jimbo74]

If it is adevertised as having flash suppression, it's not g2g for featurless.

There are muzzle brakes that look like a2 cages, but aren't flash hiders

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[tradecraft]

No it does not.

[Sparrow Dynamics]

Does the BCM Mod 0 compensator qualify as a legal muzzle device in California for a featureless build?im trying to help out a friend behind enemy lines navigate the quagmire of gun laws.

I know it’s marketed as a comp buy the advertising claims flash suppression capability. Does that make it a no go. This guy has been sitting on a lower for 6 years as is now trying to build an ar. Any help is appreciated

No-go for featureless if it advertises flash hiding. Fine for a fixed mag rifle.
Here is an article we wrote a while ago about this. We are open to changes, if anyone sees something please PM us.. https://medium.com/@sparrowdynamics/...l-94901d038ddb

[Rcjackrabbit]

I could claim I am the Queen of England. That does not make it so. Whether or not a manufacturer claims a product has flash hiding qualities DOES NOT make it a flash hider.

It is completely irrelevant. Truth is objective and measurable.

Of course, the Communists in Sacramento might try to claim that marketing defines what products are flash hiders and what products aren't. But, they are completely wrong (as usual). A product is a flash hider or compensator based on tangible objective criteria. Not marketing.

Reality is what is true. Not what you claim it to be. Example - a dude can chop off all the body parts he wants, it still does not make him female. You are born XX or XY. Nothing you do can wish that away.

America is doomed because it crossed this exact intellectual barrier.

[tonyxcom]

I could claim I am the Queen of England. That does not make it so. Whether or not a manufacturer claims a product has flash hiding qualities DOES NOT make it a flash hider.

It is completely irrelevant. Truth is objective and measurable.

Of course, the Communists in Sacramento might try to claim that marketing defines what products are flash hiders and what products aren't. But, they are completely wrong (as usual). A product is a flash hider or compensator based on tangible objective criteria. Not marketing.

Reality is what is true. Not what you claim it to be. Example - a dude can chop off all the body parts he wants, it still does not make him female. You are born XX or XY. Nothing you do can wish that away.

America is doomed because it crossed this exact intellectual barrier.

Cute rant, but actually completely pointless. If BCM claims it's a flash hider - then its a flash hider. Unless of course you can show me where muzzle devices are tested by the DOJ and/or ATF and are categorized into brakes, comps and flash hiders using some 'tangible objective criteria'.

Right. So where do we start? The manufacturers claims.

• Exterior dimensions consistent with Mil-specs for mounting flash hider mounted suppressors.
• Tuned slots and interior cone offer maximum in recoil mitigations, compensation of muzzle-rise, and flash reduction.
• Designed to have much less side blast and noise associated with typical compensators. Makes it perfect for working in teams for CQB. It is a compensator that is built for the 21st Century Gunfighter!
• Nitride treated for maximum corrosion resistance
• Includes a Crush Washer
• Should be installed by a qualified armorer.

[Sparrow Dynamics]

I could claim I am the Queen of England. That does not make it so. Whether or not a manufacturer claims a product has flash hiding qualities DOES NOT make it a flash hider.

It is completely irrelevant. Truth is objective and measurable.

Of course, the Communists in Sacramento might try to claim that marketing defines what products are flash hiders and what products aren't. But, they are completely wrong (as usual). A product is a flash hider or compensator based on tangible objective criteria. Not marketing.

Reality is what is true. Not what you claim it to be. Example - a dude can chop off all the body parts he wants, it still does not make him female. You are born XX or XY. Nothing you do can wish that away.

America is doomed because it crossed this exact intellectual barrier.

That would make sense and you should tell that to Becerra, but the legal DOJ definition works differently.... it has nothing to do with what would make sense to you or us. *The DOJ definition is written so poorly, that even sunglasses could be deemed as a flash hider. In 2018* they tried to re-write it to include "attached to the end of the barrel", but those regulations got pulled back about a month later during the bullet button fiasco and the DOJ overstepping their authority to redefine BB "AW's" and having no public responses. AND because of that, the "Assault Weapon Identification Guide" is currently out of date with a note saying it will be updated soon (for the last 3 years).

“Flash suppressor — Any device designed, intended, or that functions to perceptibly reduce or redirect muzzle flash from the shooter’s field of vision.”

There are three statements in that definition and two of them have nothing to do with function. #1) If they designed it to be a flash hider and yet it didn't work like one, then to the CA DOJ it would still be a flash hider. #2) If they market it as a flash hider, then that shows they intended to be a flash hider. Even if it does not work as a flash hider, it would still be considered one to the CA DOJ.


*EDIT: There seems to be confusion about whether the new or old definitions apply to "AW" identification. We believe these new definitions in Section 5471 only applied to registration Penal Code 30900 and not to general "assault weapons" identification Penal Code 30515. The DOJ wanted them to apply to both and you could see their intention in the Initial Statement of Reasons, and in the Final Statement of Reasons. BUT, the adopted text shows these new definitions from Section 5471 only apply to Penal Code 30900 and not 30515. The DOJ does intend to have one set of definitions based on their statement in the FSOR.

[Ki6vsm]

I could claim I am the Queen of England. That does not make it so. Whether or not a manufacturer claims a product has flash hiding qualities DOES NOT make it a flash hider.

It is completely irrelevant. Truth is objective and measurable.

No offense, but you are very wrong here. In the eyes of law (it's written into the law) that if the device is “ . . . designed, intended, or that functions to
reduce or redirect muzzle flash . . . ” it's considered a flash suppressor.

So based on the fact that they advertise flash reduction, it follows quite logically that mfr must have designed it to reduce flash. End of story, unfortunately. There is no standard for measuring reduction of flash anyway. The law relies on the device having certain physical characteristic (common to known flash suppressors) and the intent of the manufacturer.

[n8vrmind]

No go for featureless based on personal correspondence with BCM.

[Rcjackrabbit]

Stupidity. This is why America is over. You guys think 1+1=3 because someone feels it should be that way. Claims mean nothing. Objective facts mean everything.

I could advertise the BCM Mod 0 Comp cures cancer. That does not make it true.

If I build a standard AR15 with a fixed stock, grip fin, and thread protector and claim it was built to fire full auto (but it doesn't), does that make it a machine gun? My marketing claims it. So, it must be true. Just like Bruce Jenner is a lady now.

[Sparrow Dynamics]

Stupidity. This is why America is over. You guys think 1+1=3 because someone feels it should be that way.

I could advertise the BCM Mod 0 Comp cures cancer. That does not make it true.

I am surrounded by fools.

The DOJ is fools because they say 1+1=3. We are just telling the OP what the DOJ's nonsensical legal definition is. Understand the definitions, then run what you want.

[tonyxcom]

Stupidity. This is why America is over. You guys think 1+1=3 because someone feels it should be that way. Claims mean nothing. Objective facts mean everything.

I could advertise the BCM Mod 0 Comp cures cancer. That does not make it true.

If I build a standard AR15 with a fixed stock, grip fin, and thread protector and claim it was built to fire full auto (but it doesn't), does that make it a machine gun? My marketing claims it. So, it must be true. Just like Bruce Jenner is a lady now.

You are quite emotional and irrational.

Can you please provide some objective facts that prove the BCM Mod O Comp in question is not or should not be considered a flash hider?

Otherwise what is the point of your irrational rant?

Edit: Here you go, Karen.

Lower is better.
Source (https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/ar...ider-shootout/)

[Master_Prestige]

Run a Q cherry bomb

[naz]

Stupidity. This is why America is over. You guys think 1+1=3 because someone feels it should be that way. Claims mean nothing. Objective facts mean everything.

I could advertise the BCM Mod 0 Comp cures cancer. That does not make it true.

If I build a standard AR15 with a fixed stock, grip fin, and thread protector and claim it was built to fire full auto (but it doesn't), does that make it a machine gun? My marketing claims it. So, it must be true. Just like Bruce Jenner is a lady now.

You can run whatever you want, like the guy in the stall next to me a few weeks ago who decided to just say F it and built a fully featured AR without a mag lock.

Everyone is just trying to explain the current definitions to you