Outer threads on a brake and the MA AWB

Live-a-Little

NES Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
641
Likes
397
Location
Central Mass
Feedback: 21 / 0 / 0
NES Braintrust,

In the prison state of MA we have the lovely AWB evil features that we have to be weary of. One of which being “Flash hider or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one”. Now, we know if you pin a muzzle device that is not a flash hider to a threaded barrel we are good to go. The threads are now covered permanently and in the eyes of the ATF the muzzle device is now part of the barrel. This is why we can avoid the NFA laws with 14.5” barrels that have devices pinned to them which extends the length past the legal 16”.

My question is would a pinned muzzle device with threads on the outside be considered part of the barrel and possibly violate the evil feature “Flash hider or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one”?

Case law or specifics would be greatly appreciated.

I am in the process of redoing an MSR to be more comfortable shooting in a three sided enclosure. What I am hoping to do is pin a brake that can except some sort of blast can or blast forward device. The concussion of just a brake in that enclosure is less than pleasant.(Lays man card at your feet) I know there are some good options out there that don’t involve threads like the VG6 Gamma with the cage device, the strike industries line with the oppressor, or some of the ones that attach via the A2 method. But there are plenty of other options out there that use threads to secure the deflector and would prefer not to be limited if I don’t have to be.
A linear comp is something I would like to avoid also since its not necessary when I am not shooting in an enclosure.

Thanks in advance 🍻
 
Lol there is no case law on this in mass. None, zero, zip. Just "hearsay" at best, if you can find it at all. If you're doing/playing the beta cuck/pant shitter afraid of everything dance routine, then just use a different device. After all this is more or less about making you feel good about "being legal" despite the fact that there are no guarantees in this state.

I personally can't see how a brake with threads on the outside would be a "Threaded barrel" but I'm not a lawyer. I suppose some dbag MA prosecutor could go "Well by being perm attached it is part of the barrel so if there are threads on it that now makes it a threaded barrel!" there's no tech branch or SFLU in MA that makes those kinds of technical determinations.

ETA: there MAY be a fed determination on this, from years ago, but I am unsure how it would even come into play here, if at all.
 
Pretty much what I expected and I agree with you on just about everything, especially that there are no guarantees in this state.

I am just of the mindset to do all the due diligence before making decisions like this lest I miss something that will come back to bite me. Not that I would expect anything to come of this either way unless I did something stupid to put myself on someone’s radar.

But there is always the chance I missed something and I have enough to lose taking the time to ask is worth it.

If there is nothing definitive or in the books I will just take my pick of the litter and be happy as a clam. Honestly, I would prefer it this way. Build it the way I want.
 
Back in the AWB days the feds wanted a blind pinned and welded brake, or a silver soldered brake.

The feds feel at that point the brake is not an attached accessory, but a part of the barrel.

That's why today, you can buy a 14" AR barrel - very common - and simply pin/weld or silver solder a brake or hider to get over 16" and avoid NFA status.

Obviously you can have what you want, and a lot of people do, but it just seems like you're going about the expensive way to ask for trouble in MA. With the feds it absolutely follows that an externally threaded device "permanently" affixed to the barrel would be considered a threaded barrel... if that workaround were legitimate, you'd have seen a lot of goofy shit welded to guns 1989-present to skirt import regulations. Clearly nobody has tried, but you can bet if there's no case law or determination yet, it'll be a slam dunk when it comes up. If we're to ignore Mad Mauras unenforceable edict, we go with the federal standard like we did from 98-16 (the MGL just points to the USC verbatim so that's what people went with - also there was a 6 year overlap in enforcement)... and the feds definitely wouldn't like that setup you're talking about, at least not during the AWB.

In a state where you can't have a suppressor, would you really want to get jammed up over what basically amounts to a suppressor accessory, while spending money to try/fail to be in compliance? Trust me - when you move to a free state (or whatever) it's not that hard to split your pinned muzzle device and install an unpinned one. It's also not uncommon for people to skip the pin all together.
 
With the feds it absolutely follows that an externally threaded device "permanently" affixed to the barrel would be considered a threaded barrel
This was my assumption as well.

In a state where you can't have a suppressor, would you really want to get jammed up over what basically amounts to a suppressor accessory, while spending money to try/fail to be in compliance?
This is a good point about the potential suppressor accessory that I hadn’t thought about. I am willing to bet I have something between my many auto parts and tractor parts that could be construed as materials for building a suppressor that would suck if I got jacked up.


when you move to a free state
Sadly I am stuck behind enemy lines for the near foreseeable future. However, once things line up my bags will be packed the very next day.
 
This is a good point about the potential suppressor accessory that I hadn’t thought about. I am willing to bet I have something between my many auto parts and tractor parts that could be construed as materials for building a suppressor that would suck if I got jacked up.

I wasn't even thinking about it that way... but it's a fair point - "what if they think this is meant for a can".

I was thinking more that the only purpose I see for an externally threaded brake is TO install a can. So why bother when you can't have one?
 
The LaRue uppers ship with such a brake, which is why I had this same question a couple of months ago. There is no good answer.
 
Exactly how does one know that we are “good to go” in Mass with a pin/weld job on a threaded barrel??
 
What about something like a surefire muzzle brake? It's not threaded per se but can accommodate a blast forwarding device they make called the "warden" or their trainer suppressor. I assume the Ops Inc. brake for a MK12 would be a no go correct?

Plenty of breaks with thread on forwarding devices
 
As noted there aren't cases to truly rely on. But since the liberal fear of a threaded barrel comes from their watching movies that show the criminals spinning on "silencers" then spraying whisper quiet 5.56 shots from bottomless mags, I don't think a threaded muzzle device will keep you safe from awb harassment.
 
Does messing up the threads (boogering them up, putting solder on them, etc) work? Seems like it should, which is worth nothing in this state.
 
What about something like a surefire muzzle brake? It's not threaded per se but can accommodate a blast forwarding device they make called the "warden" or their trainer suppressor. I assume the Ops Inc. brake for a MK12 would be a no go correct?

I've had weapons with pinned 3-lug gull wings, no issue.
 
Exactly how does one know that we are “good to go” in Mass with a pin/weld job on a threaded barrel??

Most people fall back on the old fed standards which are something like:

1- drill hole and drop pin in hole, weld over pin. This "prevents" device rotation/removal easily.
2- silver solder which melts and some retardedly high temperature here - basically nobody does this, nobody likes roasting barrels and this is messy and not easily reversible like 1
3- "four equidistant tack welds blah blah blah" nobody ever does this because it looks like a huge pile of dog shit, so stop thinking about it, lmao.


DISCLAIMER: none of this is backed up in ANY WAY by MA case law, at least not to my knowledge. The default assumption is that the old fed standards come into
play. This MAY or MAY NOT be reality because nobody knows.... there is a huge lack of case law WRT MA AWB issues. Huge. (people don't get hung that often on AWB
charges to the point where it makes it to trial).
 
ETA: there MAY be a fed determination on this, from years ago, but I am unsure how it would even come into play here, if at all.
At the risk of being boring and repetitive on this topic, ONLY the fed determination matters. Because the AWB says "shall have the same meaning as" federal law of 13-sep-1994, only federal court is capable of making a determination if something is or is not an assault weapon. Dynamic incorporation of federal law. I leave the details to you and the GOOD lawyer you hire if you get into a bind. Healey pinned her crap on "copy or duplicates" but it does not matter because of "shall have the same meaning as". The legislature was damn lazy and good for us. Had they just pasted the actual language into MGL, then MA courts would get to decide.

Most people fall back on the old fed standards which are something like:

1- drill hole and drop pin in hole, weld over pin. This "prevents" device rotation/removal easily.
2- silver solder which melts and some retardedly high temperature here - basically nobody does this, nobody likes roasting barrels and this is messy and not easily reversible like 1
3- "four equidistant tack welds blah blah blah" nobody ever does this because it looks like a huge pile of dog shit, so stop thinking about it, lmao.


DISCLAIMER: none of this is backed up in ANY WAY by MA case law, at least not to my knowledge. The default assumption is that the old fed standards come into
play. This MAY or MAY NOT be reality because nobody knows.... there is a huge lack of case law WRT MA AWB issues. Huge. (people don't get hung that often on AWB
charges to the point where it makes it to trial).

Federally you essentially have three options for dealing with the barrel, blind pin and weld (drill hole, insert material, weld) , 360 degree solder with 1100F melting or higher (silver solder), full-fusion gas or electric steel-seam welding.

Remember that the feature is not "threaded barrel" but "flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor". So lacking federal case law or publication by the ATF (from 94-04) on the topic, the determination on the outside threads would be "is it a threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor". It would appear to NOT be a threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor. Once the device is permanently affixed to the barrel it is considered part of the barrel (like for determining barrel length). So while it is a threaded barrel, it is not designed for a flash suppressor but for a blast diverter or silencer. I think this all adds up to you are ok but that is for you and your expense lawyer to decide, not me.
 
The LaRue uppers ship with such a brake, which is why I had this same question a couple of months ago. There is no good answer.
Sure there is.

The actual language of the AWB prohibits

Flash hider or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one.

The threads on the outside of a muzzle brake are certainly not designed to accommodate a flash hider. If the threads are not designed to accommodate a flash hider, then they are not a problem. It's very clear if you actually read the language.

So no issues. Have at it.

No there isn't any case law around this. Which in itself says a lot. After 27 years, no prosecutions on this issue, says that its not a problem.
 
Back
Top Bottom