Primary Weapons FSC556 Compensator

[gemini1]

I replaced my stock FH with the FSC 556 and right away noticed the difference in how it shoots. Less recoil and reduced muzzle climb, I can double tap and hit my target. For a small shooter, this is a big help.

[dchang0]

The CA DOJ would consider the FSC556 a flash suppressor.

This is still speculation. We don't know what the CA DOJ actually thinks about the FSC556 until they bring some sort of legal action against it. And even then, it doesn't matter what the CA DOJ thinks until they actually WIN a case against it and thereby set the precedent.

Otherwise, all claims that it is or isn't legal on a featureless build are pure conjecture. Sure, some of "the right people" here say that we "shouldn't" use the FSC556 on a featureless build, but this is still only their opinion on the matter. The only people so far who haven't been talking out of their butts about it are the ones who advise us not to take the chance--they're the only ones who admit openly that there are probabilities as to whether or not the CA DOJ can and will successfully prosecute on the matter.

Of course, who here wants to volunteer to be the legal test case?

[Vinz]

You might want to read up on what the CA DOJ considers a "flash hider/suppressor" as opposed to going by BAFTE's definition. This flash suppressor/compensator is not expressly marketed by PWS as a compensator, it is marketed as a compensator with flash hiding/suppressing capabilities. The CA DOJ would consider the FSC556 a flash suppressor.

ETA: Here is a recent-ish thread regarding this exact discussion:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=272567

yeah I agree, its a risk not worth taking. If you Google FSC556, it pulls up Flash hider....exactly what a DA can do. I thought PWS was going to change the description?

Print out the letter and bring it with you if you really feel like it. This has been discussed here many times. i wouldn't risk it.
edit, they work kick azz!
Vince

[i1800collect]

This is still speculation. We don't know what the CA DOJ actually thinks about the FSC556 until they bring some sort of legal action against it. And even then, it doesn't matter what the CA DOJ thinks until they actually WIN a case against it and thereby set the precedent.

Otherwise, all claims that it is or isn't legal on a featureless build are pure conjecture. Sure, some of "the right people" here say that we "shouldn't" use the FSC556 on a featureless build, but this is still only their opinion on the matter. The only people so far who haven't been talking out of their butts about it are the ones who advise us not to take the chance--they're the only ones who admit openly that there are probabilities as to whether or not the CA DOJ can and will successfully prosecute on the matter.

Of course, who here wants to volunteer to be the legal test case?

You're right, it is all purely speculation at this point. I apologize for not making that clear in my posts.

That being said, would you not agree that it is completely irresponsible for someone to post "OP, it's perfectly legal to put it on a featureless rifle" as someone did earlier on in this thread? I for one always err on the side of caution and I believe that putting the FSC556 on a featureless build would be incredibly risky and not at all worth the potential for trouble.

[dchang0]

You're right, it is all purely speculation at this point. I apologize for not making that clear in my posts.

That being said, would you not agree that it is completely irresponsible for someone to post "OP, it's perfectly legal to put it on a featureless rifle" as someone did earlier on in this thread? I for one always err on the side of caution and I believe that putting the FSC556 on a featureless build would be incredibly risky and not at all worth the potential for trouble.

Oh yes, I wholeheartedly agree that it is irresponsible for someone to say 100% legal, just as it is irresponsible to say 100% illegal. This is very much a "gray area" right now, until a court ruling stands on the matter. Anyone saying "err on the side of caution" or calling probabilities is A-OK, because they're stating that it's not written in stone just yet.

Personally, I find the risk in running an FSC556 acceptable to me and would do so without fear, though I have not done so yet (mainly because I prefer the detachable magazine route, but also because there are better compensators on the market).

[thevic]

i have one on my 14.5" noveske. they are extremely loud and feels like your getting punched by air if you are in tight spaces ( like a shoot stand with walls at a range). but i loooove it..works great, but i recomend ear plugs even if you fire one shot or else both ears will be ringing bad.

[GM_77]

Anyone use this on your AR and does it reduce recoil and muzzle flip. Is it legal in Cali?

I've used it and I use the non-flash hider version which is the TTO. It does reduce recoil and muzzle flip a noticeable amount. In fact it is pretty amazing what you can do if you shoulder your rifle correctly and have a FSC556.

The flash suppressing capability is also decent and looks similar to the bird cage to the naked eye.

It is legal to have on registered assault weapons and rifles with bullet buttons.

The legality of putting it on a featureless can be debated but here are some facts and I'll leave it up to you to decide what to do.

• The FSC556 is NOT advertised as a flash hider and for what its worth the BATF does not classify it as a flash hider.
• CA DOJ has not ruled on the classification of the FSC556.
• We have learned from court cases that the flash hider is something that is very difficult to prosecute.

• Because of what we've learned out of Hunt v. Brown, the flash hider law is almost unenforceable due to issues of definitions and standards.
  
  What you should not do:
  - have a flash hider that's obviously a flash hider;
  - have a device that obviously reduces total flash;
  
  What you can do:
  - have a muzzle brake that is sold and marketed exclusively as a muzzle brake.

Following Bwiese's advice I went with the PWS: TTO which is basically the FSC556 with the tongs removed.