PWS FSC556: Muzzle Break/Flash Hider

[GM_77]

I am going to build a featureless rifle and was thinking about the PWS:FSC556but I have been reading here and there on calguns that I shouldn't because the BATFE letter means nothing to the CA DOJ. But none of it seemed concrete.

I wrote a e-mail to PWS asking this question and I appreciate the response I got. They state that the DOJ can decide to reclassify what they consider a flash hider or what they do not. Their muzzle device is also 50 state legal.
They also say that if a certain state's DOJ tries to reclassify the device they are probably going to start a legal argument that they will lose

So I am unsure of what the CA DOJ thinks of the FSC556 and what it is classified as.

I was going to PM Hoffmang on this matter since he seems to understand these legal issues very well. But I thought I would make a post just in case other people are wondering about this muzzle device and hope that the lawyer types respond.

Thanks in advance,

[boxbro]

I just discussed the Muzzle Break/Flash Hider debate with a friend of mine recently.
I remember reading about a case here where someone was successfully defended in court because some of the ports were on the top and therefore diverted the gas upwards in the line of sight which completely defeats the purpose of a flash hider.
At least that's how I remember it.
If it does not divert gases upwards then it falls into a gray area I believe.

[NiteQwill]

Under the CA DOJ, it is a flash hider. You cannot use it on a featureless build.

(BATFE says otherwise)

Fed: Good to go.
Cali: Go to jail.

Sucks, I know.

[bwiese]

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.

[GM_77]

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.

Thanks,
This is what I thought the answer to my question was and it aligns with what the PWS representative told me via e-mail. I think I will just be flat out safe and go with the TTO but it is good to know that the FSC is in the gray area and not the black as was my initial impression.

[cmth]

See if you can track down the older DNTC model without the prongs on the end. Either that or cut them off yourself. That will remove any flash hiding capability.

[aplinker]

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.

I'll add - the one place where I think that wouldn't be of help is when the item is sold expressly as a flash suppressor.

That is the case with the FSC556. The "FS" stands for "flash suppressing." IMHO I think this moves it into the black from gray.

[cdtx2001]

Get a Miculek compensator from Brownells, or a J.P Enterprises Recoil Eliminator. I like the latter, makes my featureless look like the end of a 50BMG.

[1911_Mitch]

-----

[Dump1567]

I think I will just be flat out safe and go with the TTO

This is the route I took.

I've been happy with the reduced recoil and the minor OAL reduction on a 16" barrel (the TTO is shorter than an A2 FH).

[NiteQwill]

What about the KAC-KNIGHT'S ARMAMENT SR15/PDW TRIPLE TAP MUZZLE BREAK, INCONEL ??

It's a brake and advertised as such. Go GTG in a featureless build.