Is this a Flash Hider or a Compensator/Muzzle brake?

[Steyr_223]

New Primary Weapons FSC556 Flash Suppressing Compensator

http://www.aimsurplus.com/acatalog/Primary_Weapons_FSC556_Flash_Suppressing_Compensator.html

Legal for featureless AR build?

[K5Cruiser]

I realize this is an "or" question, but I'm going to say yes based on the following copied from the sites description:

"This flash suppressor possesses the same recoil and muzzle compensation as the DNTC compensator but with the added benefit of flash suppression similar to that of the A2 flash hider."

[aplinker]

New Primary Weapons FSC556 Flash Suppressing Compensator

http://www.aimsurplus.com/acatalog/Primary_Weapons_FSC556_Flash_Suppressing_Compensator.html

Legal for featureless AR build?

No.

[Steyr_223]

Thanks guys, I should have known that. I wanted another opinion.

[Fuzzy5]

Good to know. I was wondering this as well, since BATFE ruled it was not a flash suppressor. Wasn't sure where CA DOJ stood.

[Chunky_lover]

from what i heard a flash hider is wide open from barrel tip, a compensator has a inner hole the bullet goes through. looks like the pic has an inner hole before the end to be a compensator

checked the website info, looks to be both?

[Fuzzy5]

from what i heard a flash hider is wide open from barrel tip, a compensator has a inner hole the bullet goes through. looks like the pic has an inner hole before the end to be a compensator

checked the website info, looks to be both?

Yup, that's true of most flash hiders, though the prong-type hiders are an exception. As far as DOJ is concerned, they would probably determine by legal definition rather than design and there is plenty of evidence that the added prongs on the FSC556 do work. I'm surprised that the prongs have much of an effect- if you look at night shots of the DNTC comp (has identical ports but further from the barrel crown), the amount of flash coming out of the ports is considerable. It just doesn't seem like adding prongs out past the ports would do much, but somehow it does.

[aplinker]

Good to know. I was wondering this as well, since BATFE ruled it was not a flash suppressor. Wasn't sure where CA DOJ stood.

The DOJ doesn't stand anywhere. They sit back and watch, wait.

The problem is that, since it's sold as a flash suppressing comp, that the legal definition would include it.

If you can get the DOJ to paper it as a brake, go for it.

[slvrbulit12]

If you like that one then get the PWS TTO comp. It would be legal on a featureless build.

[NeoWeird]

The DOJ doesn't stand anywhere. They sit back and watch, wait.

The problem is that, since it's sold as a flash suppressing comp, that the legal definition would include it.

If you can get the DOJ to paper it as a brake, go for it.

Yeah, but under the CA DOJ just about ANYTHING can be a "flash suppressor". A piece of newspaper duct taped to your gun can be a "flash suppressor" if it comes into contact with the flash in any way.

That's not to say they are wrong, but if you want to steer clear of the CA DOJ you might as well leave EVERY featureless build with a bare muzzle. Anything short of that opens the can for them to prosecute if they want.

Me, personally, since it meets the definition of a muzzle brake per ATF's definition, that's good enough for me. Chances are that if a Cop comes around and knows that can spot the difference between a muzzle brake and a flash suppressor, then they are going to know the difference between the two.

That's just my personal stance on it though. Then again I think the average Joe shouldn't use it on a featureless build because they probably wouldn't know the difference and couldn't explain to a cop why it was or wasn't legal. My only point is that if you're not going to do it because of the CA DOJ's defintion, then there is a LOT we shouldn't be doing.

[aplinker]

sigh... You're vastly overstating things.

What's the 1st thing they'll look at? The manufacturer. What do they call it? A flash suppressing comp.

Product Details
This FSC556 Tactical Compensator has all of the compensation of the standard DNTC compensator combined with enough flash suppression to keep the flash out of your optics and line of sight.

What is the definition of flash suppressor:
So, is the FSC designed to reduce or redirect flash? Yep.
Is it intended to do it? Yep.
Does it function so it does it? Yep.
Should you reasonably know it's a flash suppressor? Yes.

NOT worth it.

BATFE paper is toilet paper in CA. We're not talking about federal law here. This is CA law.

Yeah, but under the CA DOJ just about ANYTHING can be a "flash suppressor". A piece of newspaper duct taped to your gun can be a "flash suppressor" if it comes into contact with the flash in any way.

That's not to say they are wrong, but if you want to steer clear of the CA DOJ you might as well leave EVERY featureless build with a bare muzzle. Anything short of that opens the can for them to prosecute if they want.

Me, personally, since it meets the definition of a muzzle brake per ATF's definition, that's good enough for me. Chances are that if a Cop comes around and knows that can spot the difference between a muzzle brake and a flash suppressor, then they are going to know the difference between the two.

That's just my personal stance on it though. Then again I think the average Joe shouldn't use it on a featureless build because they probably wouldn't know the difference and couldn't explain to a cop why it was or wasn't legal. My only point is that if you're not going to do it because of the CA DOJ's defintion, then there is a LOT we shouldn't be doing.

[motorhead]

the name contains the words flash and suppress. if we accept that doj is going to abide by what it was sold as, isn't that kind of obvious? making it a comp as well DOES NOT remove the f/h properties which make it an evil feature.

[Addax]

I do not recommend the FSC series for featureless builds.

We have a version of the FSC 556 made for us by PWS, and we also sell the FSC 556 comps, and even though BATFE classifies the FSC series as a compensator, the CAL DOJ folks might think otherwise, so I do not recommend using the FSC series of comps on featureless builds here in California.

If you run a sort of magazine locking device on your lower receiver, then I would say go for it.