Mass Compliant Flash Suppressors to Meet the Mass "AW" Ban Requirements

[Amicus]

The Mass definition of "Assault Weapon" incorporates the old federal definition. As many of us know from the old federal ban days, if a new semi-auto rifle can accept a detachable magazine and has more than one "evil" feature, it is an "assault weapon." Since the basic AR-15 design can accept such a magazine and usually has a pistol grip, then is is often the flash suppressor that has to go (along with the threaded bbl, the grenade launcher, the collapsible stock, the bayonet lug).

Once, the ATF used to classify muzzle devices as flash suppressors or muzzle brakes. Today, I do not know of any agency, federal or Mass, that performs the same function. How does one know if a particular muzzle device is considered by the Commonwealth of Mass to be a flash suppressor or a muzzle brake? Many designers have been busy and there are a variety of devices that, to my knowledge, have never been officially classified as one or the other. Any ideas as to what is legal or not? Any government or other authorities that do so?

I'd hate to permanently install the wrong device.

 

[Scrivener]

Does it use baffles to catch the expanding gases and counter recoil? It's a muzzle brake.

Does it vent gases upwards, and NOT downwards, to counter muzzle jump? It's a muzzle brake?

Is said muzzle brake permanently attached to the barrel by welding, blind pinning or brazing? It's Mass-compliant.

 

[kevin9]

Most manufacturers label their devices as one or the other. That is what I would depending upon.

To be sure I would examine the device, or a picture thereof, to be sure the exit hole is close to bore diameter. This tends to be a good physical discriminator. The exit hole is much larger on virtually all flash hiders.

It does get tricky in that I've seen a few devices labeled as "compensators", some of which claim to have properties of both a flash hider and a muzzle brake. Personally I would tend to avoid such devices unless it was quite clear from the description and pictures that it is only a muzzle brake.

 

[bhmax16]

I think it all comes down to how the manufacturer classifies it during marketing. Whether it has "flash hiding" capabilities or not, if it is defined and sold as a muzzle brake or compensator you should be in the clear. There is one particular one I can think of off the top of my head that I won't list here, but I plan on adding it to my Sig556 and it's marketed as a compensator. I know other guys here in MA that own the same device without fear they are not within compliance. As long as you have it permanently attached to the barrel (pinned/welded), and it's not sold exclusively as a flash hider/suppressor, I wouldn't worry

 

[Blitz1]

I think it all comes down to how the manufacturer classifies it during marketing. Whether it has "flash hiding" capabilities or not, if it is defined and sold as a muzzle brake or compensator you should be in the clear. There is one particular one I can think of off the top of my head that I won't list here, but I plan on adding it to my Sig556 and it's marketed as a compensator. I know other guys here in MA that own the same device without fear they are not within compliance. As long as you have it permanently attached to the barrel (pinned/welded), and it's not sold exclusively as a flash hider/suppressor, I wouldn't worry

Where did you get a threaded barrel for the Sig? Just curious, I have a Sig on order.

 

[bhmax16]

Where did you get a threaded barrel for the Sig? Just curious, I have a Sig on order.

It's not threaded, it's the SCM model (the only one we can get here in MA, as you know). I'm going to have the barrel threaded in order to accept the compensator then have it permanently attached so it can't be removed

 

[Blitz1]

It's not threaded, it's the SCM model (the only one we can get here in MA, as you know). I'm going to have the barrel threaded in order to accept the compensator then have it permanently attached so it can't be removed

Gotcha.

 

[wolf223]

It's not threaded, it's the SCM model (the only one we can get here in MA, as you know). I'm going to have the barrel threaded in order to accept the compensator then have it permanently attached so it can't be removed

why?

just curious.

adding a break to "it" is moot. it's still going to creat an audible BANG with no noticable recoil reduction, unless you get the miculek (aka Mule Kick) compensator which will also piss off the firing line to your left and right

 

[bhmax16]

why?

just curious.

adding a break to "it" is moot. it's still going to creat an audible BANG with no noticable recoil reduction, unless you get the miculek (aka Mule Kick) compensator which will also piss off the firing line to your left and right

I'm not adding it for the compensating/breaking qualities. The particular device I'm going to add is classified as a compensator and is not defined as a flash suppressor by the BATFE, however, it DOES have flash reducing properties. I watched a video of it in use at night time and you seriously saw no flash at all from 20 feet away, it was amazing. So yes I agree with you there won't be any reduction in sound or recoil, but that's not what I'm looking for here anyway. I'm looking to reduce flash and prevent flaring of my optics while still remaining within Mass law, and this particular device will allow me to do so. If you're interested PM me and I'll send you a link to it, but I won't post the link here for obvious reasons

 

[vellnueve]

Good luck with that... if they should ever decide to charge you with having said device installed, I have little doubt that a competent prosecutor would be able to find this post and determine that your intent was indeed to reduce flash.

 

[bhmax16]

Good luck with that... if they should ever decide to charge you with having said device installed, I have little doubt that a competent prosecutor would be able to find this post and determine that your intent was indeed to reduce flash.

Intent or not, said device has a letter (supplied on the manufacturers website) from the BATFE stating it is classified as a compensator as any flash reducing properties it has are not equal to those of an actual military style flash suppressor. The law pertains to the classification of the device, not the intent for installing the device. So I find it hard to believe there would be any grounds for prosecution. It was classified as a compensator after a series of tests...so unless MA decides to add compensators to the list of evil features, I would think one should be in the clear

 

[vellnueve]

Intent or not, said device has a letter (supplied on the manufacturers website) from the BATFE stating it is classified as a compensator as any flash reducing properties it has are not equal to those of an actual military style flash suppressor. The law pertains to the classification of the device, not the intent for installing the device. So I find it hard to believe there would be any grounds for prosecution. It was classified as a compensator after a series of tests...so unless MA decides to add compensators to the list of evil features, I would think one should be in the clear

You do realize that despite the similiarities between the MA AWB and the Federal AWB, that MA is not bound by BATFE determinations?

 

[wolf223]

I'm not adding it for the compensating/breaking qualities. The particular device I'm going to add is classified as a compensator and is not defined as a flash suppressor by the BATFE, however, it DOES have flash reducing properties. I watched a video of it in use at night time and you seriously saw no flash at all from 20 feet away, it was amazing. So yes I agree with you there won't be any reduction in sound or recoil, but that's not what I'm looking for here anyway. I'm looking to reduce flash and prevent flaring of my optics while still remaining within Mass law, and this particular device will allow me to do so. If you're interested PM me and I'll send you a link to it, but I won't post the link here for obvious reasons

i used an optic on a similar barrel AR (target model) and have an aimpoint on my DPMS w / YHM muzzle break, you will not "see" the flash when looking through the optic... i only noticed the difference between a flash hider and muzzle break when i watched the videos as well... usually taken from a distance... just saying

there are several "A2" style compensators out there, along with a few "fancy" muzzle breaks that will fit your needs and make the rifle look "cool" as well....

-just be careful

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=395006

this thread comes to mind, there is also a good one on AR 15.com that i can't find right now...

 

[THUNDERCHIEF]

I think it works lik this:

If the end of the device has an opening just big enough for the round you are shooting to pass through, its a break. If the opening is much wider than the calibar you are shooting it is a flash hider.


/John

 

[bhmax16]

You do realize that despite the similiarities between the MA AWB and the Federal AWB, that MA is not bound by BATFE determinations?

So are you saying MA may still rule it as a flash hider even though it's marketed as a compensator? Regardless what the BATFE says? And therefore it's in my best interest to gather more info prior to purchasing?

 

[GLOCK.Perfection]

So are you saying MA may still rule it as a flash hider even though it's marketed as a compensator? Regardless what the BATFE says? And therefore it's in my best interest to gather more info prior to purchasing?

you wont see a ruling by mass on this type of thing.

 

[LoginName]

ATF, old AWB and current MA definitions aside, one other potential 'got'cha' is that even if the device is sold as a muzzle brake, it can also function as a grenade launcher (the type that slips over the muzzle and is launched with a blank cartridge).

During the time of the 94 ban, the ATF went as far as issuing a determination regarding an acceptable diameter (I believe something like 22mm-23mm), so that it would be too large to accept rifle launched grenades.

I know it's nit-picking, and where would anyone find the correct grenades, but I guess it comes down to just how far one wants to go just to cover their asses.

 

[vellnueve]

So are you saying MA may still rule it as a flash hider even though it's marketed as a compensator? Regardless what the BATFE says? And therefore it's in my best interest to gather more info prior to purchasing?

I'd go with something that doesn't hide flash

 

[MPK61]

I'd go with something that doesn't hide flash

I have the device on my AR, I have the letter. I asked a friend who's a State Police Officer what he thought before I had it welded on. He said no issues. Looks more like a comp than a suppressor and the letter takes the mystery away. I think the device described in this post is OK in Mass. The AG or even the PD would be way out on a limb trying to bag someone on this one. Now if you commit a crime with the AR and the suppressor is on the rifle, they may try to add it to the list as a way of piling on, but I don't see any scenario where "Joe Gun Owner" would get hassled for this. I keep the letter in my AR case as back-up.

 

[kevin9]

I have the device on my AR, I have the letter. I asked a friend who's a State Police Officer what he thought before I had it welded on. He said no issues. Looks more like a comp than a suppressor and the letter takes the mystery away. I think the device described in this post is OK in Mass. The AG or even the PD would be way out on a limb trying to bag someone on this one. Now if you commit a crime with the AR and the suppressor is on the rifle, they may try to add it to the list as a way of piling on, but I don't see any scenario where "Joe Gun Owner" would get hassled for this. I keep the letter in my AR case as back-up.

The letter as you describe it would be enough for me. The word of a MSP officer on this issue, not so much.

 

[vellnueve]

And all a DA would need to do to possibly convince a jury would be to show a video of a rifle without a suppressor versus one with that device on it. Not saying that you don't have a pretty good defense, but the stupidity of jurors in this state cannot be underestimated.

 

[groundscrapers]

Anywho... I have the comp in question on my AR. It was intended to be a flash suppressor and was sent in to the atf to be evaluated. The atf completed their evaluation and said that based upon their testing the flash reduction wasn't significant enough and they classified as a "non flash suppressing device" aka muzzle break aka mass legal. At the end of the day ma can get as pissy as they want about it because it has been tested and evaluated by the ATF.

 

[groundscrapers]

And all a DA would need to do to possibly convince a jury would be to show a video of a rifle without a suppressor versus one with that device on it. Not saying that you don't have a pretty good defense, but the stupidity of jurors in this state cannot be underestimated.

and in that case I am pretty sure your lawyer(if he has any sense) would request a bench trial and rely on a judge to read the atf letter and dismiss the case.

 

[vellnueve]

Probably a wise choice. However, your previous post is falling into the same trap - MA is not bound by ATF determinations on flash suppressors.

 

[groundscrapers]

Probably a wise choice. However, your previous post is falling into the same trap - MA is not bound by ATF determinations on flash suppressors.

So in order for the state of MA to determine that my compensator is not actually that they would have to submit it to some sort of standard of testing which would most likely be the atf's testing and would produce the same result as the original test. They cant just say that its a flash hide because they say so with no official testing to prove it.

 

[vellnueve]

Um, yes they can.

 

[milktree]

And all a DA would need to do to possibly convince a jury would be to show a video of a rifle without a suppressor versus one with that device on it. Not saying that you don't have a pretty good defense, but the stupidity of jurors in this state cannot be underestimated.

Have there been any cases of people violating the AWB in MA at all? If so, how many were about a muzzle brake vs. flash hider? (or about a flash hider at all)?

 

[vellnueve]

Have there been any cases of people violating the AWB in MA at all? If so, how many were about a muzzle brake vs. flash hider? (or about a flash hider at all)?

I'm not aware of any, but the law says no flash suppressors.

 

[chindogg]

Answered my own question lol.