Compensator makes AW now?

[splithoof]

Originally Posted by God Bless America

The DOJ is not hostile. The proposed regs explicitly allow an AR broken in 2 parts to not be an AW. They did not have to do that. They could have said the opppsite.

The DOJ is staffed with legal professionals who work on many different subject matters. They are not out to get us. The deluded fanatics in Excremento are the ones hostile to us.

You do not understand how bad it could be if the DOJ really was out to get us.

I have read a lot of bull-malarkey on this forum over the years, and I would have to say that this ranks in the top five; as an individual who knows personally two agents who have worked for that agency for a long time, you have little knowledge of the reality of their workings. Their goal seems to be to push any outlandish "rule" as far as it can go, knowing all along that the 2A community will be forced to spend $$ and time to deal with it, and in the process they may nail some gun owners to the wall while it all gets settled. They are part of a subset of LE culture that abhors the concept of an armed citizenry, and many are eager to please those in Excremento.

[bczrx]

What about the old Levar Linear style?

The most common version is probably the Troy Industries Claymore.

It directs the blast forward- no side holes at all.

[HDShawn]

So what about DPMS Miculek brake? I'm assuming ok on fixed mag (Franklin Armory DFM, unmodified, not AR Maglock). But I have a thread protector on my featureless AR, was considering the same brake. OK?

[jimx]

Originally Posted by EBR Works

You have apparently never been inspected by CALDOJ. Ask any dealer about the vibe during said inspection. They are not your buddy.

OK. EBR what is the vibe like?

If you get a chance why don't you start a thread if you don't want to hijack here.

[familyfarm]

For what its worth the DOJ effectively blessed my Miculek Compensator when I VolReged a couple of featureless 80% builds recently. I explicitly noted the muzzle device was a Miculek Comp and that I had a Hammerhead and a Fixed stock. They processed the reg quickly. If this met the AW definition they would have rejected me. YMMV but here is the link to the cheap and effective muzzle break: http://www.miculek.com/index.php?mai...products_id=27

edit: As I started this post with "For what it is worth" I do not suggest you rely my experience as a pronouncement by the DOJ that this comp is OK. I did not mean for anyone to do that. JUst sayin that they accepted on featureless reg with it. And yes this comp, like most - throws huge fireballs and makes you no friends at the range with the big sound blast it produces. But it sure does lower felt recoil as intended.

[God Bless America]

Originally Posted by familyfarm

... They processed the reg quickly. If this met the AW definition they would have rejected me. ...

You cannot rely upon that.

[Chitwood]

I see a lot of people here suggesting a thread protector solves all problems - I'm not sure that putting a thread protector on means you don't still have a "threaded barrel capable of accepting a flash hider..." - you're just covering it. This also makes the "is it a flash reducer or not" question moot unless you permanently mount it. Maybe if a thread protector or non-flash-hiding compensator is welded or epoxied on - thoughts?

EDIT: I believe I am mistaken, as pointed out by arrowshooter below this appears to only apply to pistols.

[arrowshooter]

Originally Posted by Chitwood

I see a lot of people here suggesting a thread protector solves all problems - I'm not sure that putting a thread protector on means you don't still have a "threaded barrel capable of accepting a flash hider..." - you're just covering it. This also makes the "is it a flash reducer or not" question moot unless you permanently mount it. Maybe if a thread protector or non-flash-hiding compensator is welded or epoxied on - thoughts?

Having a threaded barrel is only a problem for handguns and the only reason to "permanently mount" a muzzle devise would be to get to the 16" minimum barrel length.

[Chitwood]

Originally Posted by arrowshooter

Having a threaded barrel is only a problem for handguns and the only reason to "permanently mount" a muzzle devise would be to get to the 16" minimum barrel length.

In re-reading the law I believe I was mistaken and you are correct - pistols only. Thanks!

[JackRydden224]

Seeing how most effective muzzle brakes /comps throw gigantic fireballs I don't think it'll be a problem....

[curtisfong]

Originally Posted by JackRydden224

Seeing how most effective muzzle brakes /comps throw gigantic fireballs I don't think it'll be a problem....

Until the Legislature decides that compensators make rifles more "dangerous".

[seanbo]

Don't worry about it. If you have a flash suppressor it'll make it easier to fight the Californian government at night time.

[seanbo]

Is anyone else sick of the government allowing us things. We allow for them, it's not the other way around. We don't have to put up with a government we don't want. They can only exist if we allow for it.

[MoabFJ]

I had to swap my original 14.5" barrel because of a pinned/welded flash hider on my "featureless" M4gery.
I took advantage of the PSA CHF 16" barrel sale, and added a Surefire ProComp muzzle brake just to be safe.

[Wiz-of-Awd]

Originally Posted by seanbo

Is anyone else sick of the government allowing us things. We allow for them, it's not the other way around. We don't have to put up with a government we don't want. They can only exist if we allow for it.

You might be forgetting that there is a much larger "we" (ie: them) that support what is going on in regards to our government and firearms laws.

Otherwise, by all means - lead the charge, and storm the castle.

A.W.D.

[M1NM]

Muzle brake is intended to reduce felt recoil. Not specifically intended/designed to divert the flash. Therefore I would say legal. BTW I avoided this by putting thread protectors on and leaving the brakes and flash hiders in the parts bin.

[NuGunner]

Originally Posted by Blade Gunner

Which really pisses me off because I have a Lantac Dragon (which works fantastic in a 308AR) and I've been advised by many that when the device was first advertised it mentioned flash reduction, which it doesn't anymore.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

email the company and get it in writing.

[Blade Gunner]

Originally Posted by NuGunner

email the company and get it in writing.

Good Idea


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Murmur]

I like how the V Seven Furion brake states "Not a Flash Hider" right in the product description.

https://www.vsevenweaponsystems.com/products/furion

Recently ordered a Furion, but haven't tested it out yet.

[scottyb]

Originally Posted by familyfarm

the DOJ effectively blessed my Miculek Compensator

Originally Posted by God Bless America

You cannot rely upon that.

This is part of my reservation with my Miculek Comp. Their site states: "direct muzzle gases to the side, away from the shooter." Brownells sells it and says, "Three large baffles with six side ports and no top vents direct muzzle gases to the side, away from the shooter. "

I am concerned that this can be interpreted as redirected flash as well. The DOJ is not our friend in this, I believe. Anything that looks or talks like a duck is going to be called a duck and this redirection statement in their description can be disconcerting.

[jcwatchdog]

Originally Posted by scottyb

This is part of my reservation with my Miculek Comp. Their site states: "direct muzzle gases to the side, away from the shooter." Brownells sells it and says, "Three large baffles with six side ports and no top vents direct muzzle gases to the side, away from the shooter. "

I am concerned that this can be interpreted as redirected flash as well. The DOJ is not our friend in this, I believe. Anything that looks or talks like a duck is going to be called a duck and this redirection statement in their description can be disconcerting.

"To the side" is still in the shooters field of view. And you will still see a fireball. It's not preventing or hiding flash.

[scottyb]

Originally Posted by jcwatchdog

"To the side" is still in the shooters field of view. And you will still see a fireball. It's not preventing or hiding flash.

I understand. But I don't trust the DOJ to interpret the same way. I guess I am just assuming the DOJ will continue to screw us over in any way they can in the enforcement of the law. If the view is interpreted as site picture in the future, to the side could definitely be understood to move the blast out of it the view. Like I said, I have no faith in the DOJ to do right by us.