SIG SAUER Sues ATF For Calling Its Muzzle Brake a Silencer

P1210453

Without a doubt, the SIG SAUER MPX rifle is one of the coolest things to be unveiled in the last couple years. It’s a pistol caliber carbine that has all of the same controls as an AR-15 and feels just ever-so-pleasant to hold. But while the gun itself is cool, one of the best things about it is that the civilian version has the same barrel length as the military and law enforcement versions, but with a gigantic muzzle brake out front to bring it up to the required 16″ in length. And not only is it a functional muzzle brake, SIG claims that you could buy a shroud for the brake later on a form 4 (as a registered silencer) that slots over it to turn it into a silencer — a part they will happily sell you down the road. Except there’s a problem . . .

SIG MPX, c Nick Leghorn

The ATF didn’t like it. They saw it as a baffle stack, not a muzzle brake and as such classified it as a silencer. From a press release:

The Newington gun maker’s suit, filed in the U. S. District Court of New Hampshire, states that it submitted a rifle, with its muzzle brake, to the ATF on April 4, 2013 for evaluation. The device is described as 9.5 inches long and permanently attached with a weld to a 6.5 inch barrel, making the overall barrel length 16 inches.

The ATF responded, by letter dated Aug. 26, 2013, that the device is constructed as a silencer component commonly referred to as a “monolithic baffle stack,” the suit states. “Welding it to a barrel does not change its design characteristics or function,” Sig says it was informed by the ATF.

In a Sept. 6, 2013 followup letter, Sig asked the federal regulatory agency for reconsideration, while reporting that sound meter testing proved the device amplified, not muffled sound, when a gun with it was fired. It also included evidence showing the device offsets and corrects recoil of a firearm when attached, Sig claims.

SIG SAUER is none too pleased. The gun would have been a huge seller in the United States if not for the ATF’s ruling. So they decided to fight back and filed a suit against the ATF to re-classify their device as a muzzle brake.

Gun maker Sig Sauer has filed a civil suit against the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives claiming the federal agency wrongfully classified a “muzzle brake” Sig designed to reduce recoil, as an item “intended only for use” when making a silencer.

Sig claims that gun silencers are “subject to burdensome legal requirements” and by calling its muzzle brake a part for a silencer, the federal agency is subjecting it to “economic injury.”

[…]

ATF Director B. Todd Jones is named as defendant in Sig’s lawsuit and has 21 days, after being served, to respond to the civil action, dated April 7.

I’ve got to give SIG some points for having the testicular fortitude to stand up to the ATF and try to get them to reverse one of their notoriously opaque decisions. I’ll be up at SIG SAUER HQ next week testing out their guns and such, so stay tuned for more news as it becomes available.

comments

  1. avatar PhoenixNFA says:

    It’s a silencer part. Sig is gonna lose its ass on this. GG sig.

    1. avatar JT says:

      Unfortunate but true. Baffles are angled downward which wouldn’t exactly help with reducing muzzle rise, the end of it was threaded, and SIG was advertising that the point of that threading was to attach a sleeve over it to use it as the baffle system for a suppressor.

      1. avatar Anonymous says:

        It is a muzzle brake not a compensator. It doesn’t matter which way the supposed “baffles” or “metal plates” incline or decline. The gas is expelled at the sides creating an effective muzzle brake.

    2. avatar neiowa says:

      Good that we have Perry Mason and Mr Matlock on this.

      Good for SIg. I don’t get a shorty barrel that isn’t but anyhow. There needs to be a new industry lawsuit against ATF and Jones EVERY day of the week. Tie the SOBs (nad Holder) in knots.

    3. avatar beanfield says:

      I think it could go either way depending on the judge. The methodology the ATF uses is absurd, especially when you consider that with sig’s “brake” (what the ATF calls a silencer) will likely make the firearm louder. Of course the ATF makes up it’s own rules on silencer parts, but realistically this thing doesn’t suppress sound until the serialized part (the tube) is mounted.

    4. avatar Rabbi says:

      I agree. It looks (has baffles only used in suppressors) and acts (with a cover) like a suppressor part. I don’t know the exact wording of the law, but if ATF bans the use of suppressor parts and not just complete suppressors, SIG is going to lose.

      1. avatar CT Resident says:

        I hope SIG can get the ATF’s ruling on what a silencer is corrected. The ATF claim that any part of a silencer is a silencer is absurd and if I am not mistaken was one of the ridiculous results of the Clinton presidency.

        1. avatar Mike says:

          Your going to have to go back further on that one. That was a Ruling from the Reagan era.

      2. avatar Daniel S. says:

        Ok. Everytime you buy an oil filter from now there will be a $200 tax stamp because it, along with some other parts, can be used as a suppressor. An item is the sum of its parts. Calling that muzzle brake a suppressor because you can add things to make it one is crap. Semi-auto AR-15s are now NFA items too btw cause I could add certain parts to make them full-auto.

        1. avatar Barstow Cowboy says:

          I don’t know, your argument is very convincing, but for Pete’s sake Rabbi is a law enforcement officer! He works for “A New Mexico police agency”, so I give his opinions a lot of weight when it comes to legal questions.

    5. avatar BDub says:

      I kind of agree. SIG is pushing their luck a bit far here. But I do appreciate the efforts. Even if they loose, any testimony will highlight the absurdity of these regs in the first place – ultimately this WILL undermine NFA, win or loose.

      However, I am more shocked that this isn’t about the barrel length. If that changes I think this could lead to a rewriting of the definitions on barrel length. If they end up excluding welded features like muzzle-breaks and flash-hiders from the calculation of length, then we are all a bit in the red.

      1. avatar Matt irons says:

        The fixed supressors have been making the 14.5″ barrels legal for sometime now. I’m not sure what state a lot of the people are from on here, but in my state $200 one time fee per silencer with the same fed back ground check as buying any firearm. Hell I don’t know about the rest of you but I’m hoping that sig either way gets pissed and includes the tube to complete the silencer free of charge. I pay the extra $200 fee. NOTE TO ALL, WE ALL NEED TO COME TOGETHER AND STOP ALL THIS COMPROMISING OF OUR RIGHTS. NOMATTER HOW SMALL. I BELIEVE THAT IF A PERSON IS NOT A FELLON, THAT PISTOLS SHOULD BE CARRIED OPENLY ON OUR HIPS ARE COVERED, AND IF YOU GOT THE MONEY WE AS AMERICANS ARE TO BE ABLE TO OWN ANY WEAPON WE WANT. Sorry got a little out worked up on your post. No point attended toward you.

        1. avatar David says:

          I agree 100%

    6. avatar Nighthawk says:

      How are they going to lose their ass? Maybe this could set a precedent and bust the ATF’s stranglehold of bullshit, backwards, irrational and idiotic laws with respect to ALL firearms. And gun manufacturers have the means and lawyers to bring these cases we the people don’t have. Stop being a pawn for ATF bullshit, worried that challenges to the idiotic laws of the NFA would put a dent in your precious investments? The fact sig is fighting this should encourage other manufacturers to do the same and actually stand up for our rights, even if they do it by way of their economic incentives.

      1. avatar PhoenixNFA says:

        because the ATF can pull out the literal STACK of determination letters from FTB regarding this exact same design from different manufacturers.

        1. avatar Anonymous says:

          And sig can bring out their stack of studies and tests indicating the structure indeed acts as a muzzle brake.

      2. avatar Matt irons says:

        I totally agree. Hell we all need to go buy a new sig, theses are the companies we all need to support.

    7. avatar David says:

      Vehicles use baffles as well, so what are you implying here? All companies that make baffles are breaking the law? Get real…

      The biggest problem with society today is that it’s full of desensitized pansies all worried about breaking “Federal law” when the true laws of the land are written in our amendments.

  2. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    I hope they win.

  3. avatar KOB says:

    It looks like most other muzzle breaks. Couldn’t one shroud a muzzle break and turn it into a supressor? If that’s the case, then couldn’t the ATF then say that all muzzle brakes are silencer parts? Obviously it’s longer, but when you have a government organization pretty much taking the law, interpreting it as they see fit, and then enforcing their intepretation of the law, then you get a garbled mess of a minefield. I’m glad Sig is standing up to them, hopefully at least it’ll set the bar for these kinds of things and rein in the ATF. I wish more companies with deeper pockets did the same, as well as the NRA.

    1. avatar Hagge says:

      At least muzzle breaks with quick detach functionality for suppressors could be said to be a part of the suppressor.

    2. avatar Crunkleross says:

      “KOB says:
      It looks like most other muzzle breaks. ”

      Come on, I wish this thing would get past ATF scrutiny as much as anyone but that is ludicrous.

    3. avatar Roscoe says:

      @ KOB
      Probably the best that can come out of this will be nailing ATF down to a clear objective set of guidelines for muzzle brakes and silencers so they can’t leapfrog from one guideline to another which they develop case by case on their own whim.

    4. avatar Anonymous says:

      ATF isa. Corrupt garbage agency. Authoritarian in nature with god like decisions vested to a small part of the agency called the FTB. All arbitrary nonsense withh decisons based on profit.

  4. avatar CA_Chris says:

    By that logic, any bar stock of appropriate material is a silencer, because someone could maybe might work it into a silencer. Probably not, but you never know… you know, for the children and all that.

    1. avatar KCK says:

      Yes, and if that bar stock had dotted lines on it for where to cut (indexed) you would be right, wouldn’t you?

  5. avatar Jake says:

    The BATFE is full of crap up to the ceiling. We know that.

    However, Sig may lose this case. I hope they don’t. I hope the recent smack the BATFE got for ruling a different muzzle break as a suppressor fuels the fire for getting the name changed to BATE.

    1. avatar pyratemime says:

      If such a change were made I move that the senior executives title be changed from Director to Master.

      Yes, I know it is a juvenile and immature joke but then again so is the agency.

    2. avatar B says:

      ATF already got smacked down for not having scientific standards for silencers for that other muzzle brake. Seems like the #1 scientific criteria for a silencer is that it makes gunshots quieter. Their current 6 random points criteria has been shot down as stupid by a judge. Maybe they can get something similar to the 80% lower criteria where its a muzzle brake until it freaking silences.

  6. avatar Tiks895 says:

    I agree that this ruling is dumb but SIG should just sell a pistol version of this with an AR15 pistol buffer tube and the pistol brace they make and presto!!! An awesome “pistol” that everyone would buy including myself. This rifle is a really cool idea if you want to go the NFA route and get the suppressor tube.

      1. avatar Tiks895 says:

        Awesome! I have been on the SIG website for awhile. I guess the mrs. Is gonna have to put up with another purchase lol

  7. avatar Paul Hurst says:

    It is a baffle stack. Who is advising Sig on this? They need to be fired.

  8. avatar beanfield says:

    This comes on the heels of a Federal judge smacking down the ATF’s criteria for determining whether a muzzle device is a silencer or not (6 characteristics) as opposed to performance metrics (sound metering). The judge also calls into question the whether the determination letter approach carries with it the force of law, calling their letter “a brief and informal document.”

    TTAG’s article sums it up nicely.

    http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/03/robert-farago/atf-jumped-gun-silencer-designation/

    “It contains hardly any reasoning, and makes no reference to prior agency regulations or interpretations that support its conclusion,” he continued. “The letter appears to be a non-binding statement of the agency’s position on whether the Stabilizer Brake is a silencer, which will not bear the force of law as applied in future classifications of different devices”

    “Hypotheticals further illustrate the weakness of this methodology,” he wrote. “A mouse is not an ‘elephant’ solely because it has three characteristics that are common to known elephants: a tail, gray skin and four legs. A child’s bike is not a ‘motorcycle’ solely because it has three characteristics common to known motorcycles: two rubber tires, handlebars, and a leather seat. And a Bud Light is not ‘Single-Malt Scotch,’ just because it is frequently served in a glass container, contains alcohol, and is available for purchase at a tavern. To close with a firearm-related example a hockey puck us not a ‘rubber bullet,’ just because it has rounded sides, is made of vulcanized rubber, and is capable of causing injury when launched at high speeds. Learning that one object has three characteristics in common with some category may not be very helpful in determining whether the object in question belongs in that category.

    1. avatar Roscoe says:

      Exactly!

  9. avatar disthunder says:

    Good for Sig. This could be a first step on a long, long road to getting the stupid out of buying a suppressor.
    Its going to take a lot more manufacturers, though.

  10. avatar Texheim says:

    Sig kinda pissed me off in y’alls: Sig Hearts No Knock post…

    1. avatar Steve Truffer says:

      If they get a judge to smack down the jackboots, I forgive them.

  11. avatar PhoenixNFA says:

    Nieowa. Thank you for your constructive comment. Now would you tell me how it isn’t a silencer part and give examples?

    1. avatar foggy says:

      An oil filter is potentially a silencer, isn’t it? So is an apple or a pillow. Should they all have to be registered under the NFA? May your chains rest on you lightly

      1. avatar RoninTheDog says:

        You’re aware that Sig showed, when the product was announced, that these worked as silencer baffles, and they even showed off the slip on cover that makes it an integrated suppressor.

        We’re all remembering this before commenting right?

        1. avatar beanfield says:

          To be fair, using the same criteria (intended purpose) all 80% lowers are firearms. After all the vendors are clear in their marketing about what they are and what they will be become.

          Yeah, yeah, I know…”it crosses the ATF’s determination letter of X number of criteria that make it a silencer”. Challenging that criteria (again) is the whole point of sig’s case. Realistically speaking…if it doesn’t suppress the sound signature it’s stupid to call it a silencer (as a federal judge just agreed). Hopefully the judge in sig’s case sees it the same way.

        2. avatar foggy says:

          Does it reduce the heard report of the carbine in its current configuration? No? How is it a silencer then? The ATF may say that nuts, washers and threaded rods are silencer parts, and the courts may agree, but that does not make it objectively true.

        3. avatar rosignol says:

          Yeah, and if I installed a DIAS, my AR-15 would be a machine gun. But I don’t have a DIAS, so my AR-15 isn’t a machine gun.

          By the exact same standard, an MPX-C without the sleeve isn’t suppressed. That adding a part would make it suppressed is not relevant. Without that particular part the gun is not what ATF wants to call it.

          On one level, I do have a certain amount of sympathy for people who have to turn the crap Congress writes into working regulation and procedure. But this is the kind of thing that needs challenging. The regulatory agencies need to understand that they can only go as far as Congress authorized them to go, and not one inch further.

      2. avatar CT Resident says:

        I agree with foggy, a part does not make a device. The ATF ruling came about when people were selling suppressor parts and the ATF “solved” the problem by saying that parts were silencers. The rules are dictatorial, arbitrary and absurd. We follow them because we are law abiding individuals, not because they make sense. You have to fight for your rights to have any chance of keeping them, I believe there is a very good chance SIG could win because there is merit to their case IMO. I also believe they could lose because reason and logic doesn’t always win. I need more information to gauge their chances. Under current dictatorial interpretation of the law it is a silencer, objectively it is not a silencer.

    2. avatar James says:

      If you have a semi-automatic rifle and a shoestring you can be considered guilty of conspriacy to manufacture a machine gun.

      I’m sorry, what was the question?

      http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/01/daniel-zimmerman/when-a-shoe-string-is-a-machine-gun/

  12. avatar JM says:

    Just because it looks like it it is a monolithic baffle doesn’t mean it is. It’s original stated designed purpose is to function as a muzzle brake, and it works as one, even minimally, then it’s a muzzle brake. It’s similar to the stabilizing brace for AR pistols, just because you could use it to make a silencer/suppressor doesn’t mean it’s a suppressor. Besides, the the ATF has demonstrated that they make these decisions very subjectively.

    1. avatar The Stig says:

      THIS… EXACTLY THIS.

      Just because sig’s stupid “arm brace” *looks* like a stock, doesn’t make it one.

      Also, the ATF says it’s not a stock, but if someone were to use it as one, since that’s NOT the design or intended use of the device it cannot be classified as a short barrel rifle because of the misuse. By the same logic, sig designed this muzzle device to help mitigate muzzle climb, but what if one were to slip a cylinder over the outside and it just *happened* to suppress the report of the firearm. Since it’s not INTENDED to be a silencer, wouldn’t that mean by their logic on the brace, USING It like a silencer wouldn’t reclassify it as a silencer????

      This just proves the ATF is a completely useless group of children.

      1. avatar dean says:

        A group of children has the potential to grow into adults who strengthen society and expand our knowledge. This fundamental basis of society makes the group of children the most valuable asset we have.

  13. avatar FortWorthColtGuy says:

    Cool idea and just goes to show the NFA is a stupid law written by stupid politicians who had no idea what they were passing a law about. However, in light of the SigTac brace ruling, I think they have a chance to get this overturned. After all, the device needs to be judged on what the “intent” is, not what it can be used for.

    1. avatar B says:

      They knew what they were passing, they just thought it was going to tax handguns too. The law only really makes sense if it covers pistols as well. As is its just a bunch of insane contradictions that make no sense.

  14. avatar Tim says:

    Arbitrary: based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

  15. avatar Tyler says:

    Has anyone looked at the muzzle brake on the m107? Sig’s brake appears to be an elongated version of Barrett’s, so I see a case to be argued here.

    1. avatar KCK says:

      The ATF would say that an M107 CANNOT be silenced therefore it is not a silencer component.
      What’s that saying about both sides of their mouth?

  16. avatar rlc2 says:

    Well, if this elevates more of the public consciousness on silencers, and why the ATF BAN on hearing conservation devices is stupid, contrary to common-sense, and a health hazard in general, then I am all for it.

    Silencers are used by everyday folks target shooting in Europe. I certainly would prefer to go plink at an indoor range where they had certain times and sessions and rentals set up for silencer equipped weapons only. Would be a lot more pleasant than being right next to the pimply nitwit with the NITRO in the next booth.showing off for his girlfriend.

    I mean- wtf- didnt silencer bans come from 1986 and the hysteria then over “assault rifles” wielded by black radicals? If thats the case, then a silencer ban is really sort of RAAACCIIIIISSSTTTT! Right?

    1. avatar lolinski says:

      They are pretty common here. They also make good clubs to beat on that one guy who shows up with a .375 with a muzzle brake.

    2. avatar B says:

      I’ve been going to the range more recently and double hearing protection is pretty much mandatory for comfort reasons. The concussion from the rifles indoors is just nuts. I’d like to be able to wear some nice light electronic shotgunner muffs or ear plugs. A silencer would drop it enough to where none would be ok and single would be me (understandably) being paranoid for my hearing. PPE being controlled is just insane when its considered a right with any other kind of HAZMAT or condition.

  17. avatar Dean says:

    Either way you gotta love SIG. “No Knock” goof up aside SiG designs and builds accurate and reliable weapons that are easy to use in high stress situations.

    Win or loose I’d rather see them fight than bend over.

  18. avatar PhoenixNFA says:

    Foggy, I appreciate you suggesting I am a slave to the ATF. Thank you for saber rattling.

    Now. In this example (let’s stay on topic, shall we?) can you explain to me
    How it isn’t a silencer part?

    Mods: eta on mobile “reply” selections?

    1. avatar foggy says:

      You make your living off of the existence of the NFA, don’t you? It just seems that you would have a vested interest in keeping items restricted.

      1. avatar B says:

        Technically he makes his living off navigating the NFA (assuming hes an FFL), kind of like those obamacare coaches. Difference though is people would still buy silencers from him if they were removed from the list. I still buy accessories from gun stores out of convenience even if Amazon or Midway would save me a couple bucks. No one would pay obamacare coaches (or H&R Block) if you were not having a metaphorical gun held to your head by the exchanges and IRS.

      2. avatar PhoenixNFA says:

        no i do not. my main occupation is Tech Support.

    2. avatar DustinD says:

      You are mistaken in the premise. Sig wants a judge to strike down the rule, and change the criteria by which these parts are judged.

  19. avatar KCK says:

    Do you get enough velocity benefit with only a 6.5 barrel? A lot of money for a shoulder pistol. Since not many of us are going the tax stamp route, why not a 10/6 inch configuration.
    Been looking a long time at the Berretta CX4, PC9, Sub2k etc. Id put this on the list.
    And after all, it’s a SIG.
    But here we go with the ATF ruling on what something can be, rather than what is is.
    Black and white plastic anyone.

    1. avatar B says:

      Its shooting 9mm or 40, not 357 or 44. Most of the powder gets burned by the 10″ point, they don’t have the giant powder reserve of the magnums that makes the pistol caliber lever guns awesome.

  20. avatar Don says:

    I want an MPX enough I’d jump through the hoops for an SBR stamp and a suppressor stamp.

    If we all drop the legal-definition b.s. (the necessity of which illustrates that the NFA laws are stupid and need to be repealed), it is definitely designed and intended to be a baffle stack. But it’s not used as a baffle stack unless you go through the ATF legal hoops to put a tube on it. Sig should certainly have the right to market a crappy muzzle brake if they want to though.

    The fight really is to un-restrict suppressors, and power to SIG for trying to win by attrition. I hope they win. If anything their “muzzle brake” and “arm brace” will force the ATF to make even more general prohibitions which will be easier to overturn in court. E.G. with the marking of drill holes on 80% lowers being declared illegal extra-judicially, the ATF is generally punishing the transmission of information, which should be a 1A issue, which courts usually rule in favor of.

    -D

  21. avatar bozo says:

    Bravo for Sig… but… those “arm braces” on their SBR’s reclassified as “stocks” in 3…. 2… 1….

    1. avatar GunGuyInNC says:

      My first thought also, SIG say hello to “arm brace” reclassification. Will be interesting to see if Sig can argue that an arm brace misused does not make it a stock, then a baffle system misused as a muzzle break does not make it a silencer. My bet is the ATF will treat it just like the poly 80% uppers, and claim it’s a manufactured silencer part, easily converted to a silencer (had SIG not advertised it was silencer ready with a cover they would have a better argument).

      1. avatar DustinD says:

        The arm brace can be used in any manner. The ATF has sent letters confirming that fact. Copies of it and articles on the subject are available on TTAG as well as other places.

  22. avatar mark_anthony_78 says:

    By this logic, isn’t every barrel or every gun ever manufactured just a component of a silencer?

    After all, all you have to do is add a few parts to the barrel to have a silencer…

    1. avatar B says:

      Rubber washers and packing are considered silencer components by the ATF, yes. Its why the oil filter silencer adapters (and serviceable silencer inners) got ganked by them and had to have both parts serialized and not be owner replaceable.

  23. avatar Chris in NC says:

    Didn’t the BATFE just say that they will only regulate in regards to the intended purpose of an item, not what someone ‘might’ do with an item, when they released their letter about the Sig armbrace?

    Can not compute.

    1. avatar Robert Bopkin says:

      Protip: Nothing they say can be used against them in a court of law. They are the law. What they say goes.

  24. avatar Aaron NM says:

    The device is clearly not a silencer, it requires some work and additional parts to become a silencer. Yes it can be argued that it is a silencer part, but the law doesn’t state anything about silencer parts requiring a tax stamp. Only a device that actually reduces the sound of the a firearm discharge. The BATFE regulations go far beyond the the meaning of the NFA and thus are clearly wrong and won’t stand up in court in front of non brain dead judges.

    1. avatar B says:

      Which district are they suing in, the US District Court of New Hampshire? Are they 2A friendly in previous rulings?

  25. avatar sacorey says:

    Totally not a brake, sorry sig, thats a baffle stack, yeah im going on the “i knows it when i seent it” but theres too much room for expansion of gas between your uh “muzzle compesating fins” which doesnt appear to reduce recoil or muzzle flip any more than a couple oz of inconel would taped to the hand guard. Additionally, saying “just throw a piece of appropriately threaded and sized seamless stainless tubing on this bad boy and paperwork or something…” doesnt help your case.

    That said, i think under miller, theres nothing in the nfa that isnt under common use by our millitary and therefore should be excluded from the nfa… that and those two federal cases where the atf gave up, what was that, “rock island v illinois”?

    1. avatar B says:

      I’m glad as a nation we tend to steer away from King’s Law and as a rule stick towards clear definitions and limits, Whitehouse and entire Executive Branch notwithstanding.

  26. avatar KCK says:

    What might be the MSRP range on this item?

    1. avatar rosignol says:

      At least $2k.

      I’ve nicknamed them $ig.

      (why should HK be the only outfit that we make fun of?)

  27. avatar PhoenixNFA says:

    @foggy. No I don’t. I’m not an FFL or sot. I’m a NFA junkie yes, but not an FFL.

    1. avatar foggy says:

      Sorry, my mistake. I was under the impression that you were an FFL holder with a Class 3 stamp but I must have mistaken you for someone else.

  28. avatar lolinski says:

    It is clearly a baffle stack, but it doesn’t dampen the noise by itself so I don’t see why it should be illegal according to your laws.

  29. avatar RT says:

    No way any FFL/SOT wants more restrictions. Think of how many more suppressors they would sell if people weren’t turned off by waiting a year or more to get something they already paid for. Take it from somebody has been waiting for 5000.00 worth of suppressors(already paid for) to finally be mine.

  30. avatar Bryan says:

    In it’s current configuration it’s intended purpose is as a muzzlebrake and that’s what it is. If I choose not to pay the extra for the sleeve and stamp then I still have a muzzlebrake, albeit a crappy one. You can’t regulate on how someone may, or may not use something to make something else. In it’s current configuration (how it’s being sold) it’s no more a silencer than an everglades airboat can be regulated as an airplane, because all you have to do is add the wings, or as a gyrocopter by adding mast and blades.

    Besides I think it’s pretty cool looking just the way it is, and cool looking items will always sell regardless of how well they function.

  31. avatar Ralph says:

    Good for SIG. Win or lose, the company is pointing out the absurdities inherent in the NFA.

  32. avatar lolinski says:

    It is a baffle stack but it doesn’t silence the gat on its lonesome. So it shouldn’t be controlled/banned ,especially considering that according to your laws a silencer is something that reduces the report of the weapon.

  33. avatar Stephen says:

    I dont like how the atf changes their minds all the time and is clearly a reason why congress needs to define items not leave it to the atf.

    With that said. Its a sillencer baffle stack, they can not include the shroud but its a baffle stack.

    The atf is clear that if you have a assembled baffle stack threaded or attached to a firearm even if the silencer is not complete its intent.

    The same thing goes for auto sears.

    So the atf is right.

    With that said I think SBR short barreled rifles and suppressors shouldn’t be on the nfa.
    Only aow full auto and dd.

    1. avatar B says:

      Thats the kind of compromise I’d like to see, we let them keep machine guns on the NFA, and they remove SBR/SBS’s and silencers.

      1. avatar Doc says:

        That is very hypocritical of you, lets regulate some but not all based on your whim. You sure you don’t advise for the ATF? De-regulate ALL of them, re-open the machine gun books. And to those of you who keep saying “oh thats a mono stack” are not much help either. SIG has the money to take this fight so let them and keep your comments to yourself lest they be used against you later on. Think I am kidding about that? Not a far stretch to say “even gun owners agree that”

  34. avatar ghost930 says:

    Everyone is losing the sight of the big issue here. That is, why are suppresors (there is no such thing as a silencer) illegal to begin with? There is no inherit evil in sound suppresors. In fact, in Europe at one time it was common courtesy to use them when firing small caliber rifles in backyard shooting ranges, and for “rookery” type shooting within towns. They were legal to make, and legal to own. In fact, many countries in Europe still don’t prohibit there use to this day. Imagine that, liberal crazy Europe actually allows a firearm item prohibited by the US. The addition of a sound suppresor to any firearm does nothing to make it anymore “evil” or have any kind of criminal intent. This is a Hollywoodism being foisted on the American public by the BATFE much as the whole automatic knife laws from the 50’s made “switchblades” evil and criminal. Neither mechanism contributes to the item being anymore dangerous or sinister than any other firearm or knife, except in the eyes of people with no common sense who watch to many late night “gangster” movies. What’s needed here is some common sense from our government. Oh yeah, that probably is the big problem.

  35. avatar ht4 says:

    Silencer is defined as follows:

    “The terms “firearm silencer” and “firearm muffler” mean any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm, including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, and any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication.”

    Thus, there are three categories of objects that qualify:

    (I) any device for diminishing the report of a portable firearm;
    (II) any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer; and
    (III) any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication.

    The Sig barrel does not diminish the sound of a gun, so it doesn’t qualify under (I).
    The Sig barrel does not have sufficient parts to assemble a silencer, so it doesn’t qualify under (II).
    The Sig barrel is not intended ONLY for use in the assembly of a silencer (it is also intended to be a brake), so it doesn’t qualify under (III).

    That seems pretty simple to me.

    The biggest question in my mind is whether you need sufficient parts to assemble a full silencer to qualify under (II). I think the better answer is “no” because such a reading would render (III) useless and excess language. A well-established maxim of statutory interpretation is that you should read a statute in a way that gives all parts meaning.

    In any case, that’s my initial impression based on a quick read of the law.

  36. avatar PhoenixNFA says:

    Ok since im at the house and not on my phone let me wax poetic.

    Sig never intended this to be a muzzle brake. wait, before you get the pitchforks let me explain. Sig was intending to sell these as complete carbines with the purchaser later buying a silencer tube and locking ring, end cap, whatever you want to call it.

    http://i.imgur.com/vUDbs6f.jpg?1

    see the part waaaaay at the bottom? thats what they intended to sell.

    if that is the case, the the muzzle brake aformentioned is a silencer part.

    citation? FOPA 86.

    –(24) The terms “firearm silencer” and “firearm muffler” mean any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm, including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, and any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication.–

    so, the muzzle brake is intended to be a silencer part, therefore it is a silencer part, therefore cant be sold without a stamp, therefore the mpx-c violates NFA law.

    sorry folks.

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      Well, you’re all wet here. Since it does nothing to suppress the rifle’s report, how can it be a “silencer”?

  37. avatar Southern Cross says:

    The BATFE is a clear example of when ONE group makes the rules, interprets the rules, and enforces the rules.

    This is why most western democracies have “The doctrine of separation of powers” where the law creation, interpretation, and enforcement is done by (supposedly) separate entities.

  38. avatar William Burke says:

    Hmm. I fail to see the problem. If a shoelace is a machine gun, then…..

  39. avatar PhoenixNFA says:

    Well ladies and germs. I laid it out easy as I could. Perhaps semantics are getting in the way. Needless to say I’ll take any and all bets that sig gets told no and the mpx-c in its shot show 2013 advertised iteration doesn’t get sold to the public.

    Sorry dudes. Thems the rules. Shoestring machine guns and oil filter cans are a whole different can of worms.

    1. avatar Matt irons says:

      This might piss you off, but I really don’t care. I’m a firm believer in our constitution as it was written buy our founding fathers. 90% of the added on laws are just chicken shit ways for certain sorry excuse for humans to get their beliefs and agendas put in place to line their pockets with hard working Americans money. People like you are just as bad as them in my book. Here let me lay this out here for ya. If you and the rest of the lybral pussies in this country don’t wake the fu$@ up and stop backing these clowns and their lying, agendas, anti American ways, and most of all the persecution of our Christian beliefs your gonna be wishing you had some of these weapons to kill the bastards chopping off your families heads along with other American families. You might want to sit back and think. Well here’s just one example how many terrorist do you think just In last few months have dressed up like a Mexicans and walked his ass in our country with one agenda on his mind to kill us all. Wake up man people like you keep helping our government sell us our children and our grand children’s lives.

  40. avatar mike says:

    Tube off = long ass muzzle brake
    Tube on = monocore silencer

    Pretty ballsy Sig lol. And I hope you win!

  41. avatar M. J. says:

    There are no such things as “silencers” there are supressors. No gun will ever be completely silent.

    This is a gun forum, magazines should not be “clips” Supressors should not be called “silencers”, cartridges should not be called “bullets”, APV’s/APC’s should not be called “Tanks”. and so forth.

    1. avatar beanfield says:

      When you fill out a form 1 to make a silencer/suppressor or a form 4 to transfer a silencer/suppressor and submit it to the ATF, what do you put in form 4b? Every single one of my form 4 transfers says “silencer”. That’s what the ATF defines them as hence the term used when describing the ATF’s ruling.

    2. avatar mike says:

      That may be all true, but unfortunately we use the verbiage the ATF/NFA officially use on their forms and documents….which is “silencer.”

    3. avatar Mike says:

      Hiram Maxim, the inventor of the dices, named them silencers. The ATF calls them silencers because thats what the inventor named them. They were referred to as Silencers for 70 years . The name “Suppressor” is a 70’s convention dreamed up by a writer for Soldier of Fortune to popularize their usage amongst law enforcement and military who did not want to use “silencers” because of the bad press they would get if they did. Sorry. Soldier of fortune writers do not get to name things they did not invent. I have 7 or 8 silencers because that is what they are called..

  42. avatar James in Houston says:

    What needs to happen is firearm companies join in a collaborative effort to sue the ATF into oblivion until the ATF has no legs to stand on. Maybe they’ll have to at the very least cut all their raid happy agents and are only left with desk jockeys who don’t know which end of the barrel is the business end.

  43. avatar Harley Weewax says:

    One consequence I would hate to see come out of this is that the core of a silencer is a part that should now be serialized. That would suck.

  44. avatar Anti says:

    If all manufacturers did the same a SIG is doing on EVERYTHING, it would keep those power hungry abusive BATF bureocrats busy defending themselves and off gun owners backs. We are always on the defensive and as always the best defense is a spirited and energetic offense. The message has to be sent by everyone that we the people are tired of the constant overwhelming BS piled upon the law abiding citizen. My congratulations to SIG and I wish that very soon we would also find cause to congratulate other weapon manufacturers. These laws are written by people who wish to impose their will, not by those who wish to serve the citizen.

  45. new Blazers uniforms With Direct

  46. avatar Jason Douglas says:

    The argument that they intended it as a suppressor is BS. The end user needs additional parts in order to utilize the gun in a manner subject to the NFA. To say otherwise means that just because your AR didn’t come with a lightning-link doesn’t mean its not a machine gun. The addition of a regulated piece of hardware is necessary in order to change the manner of operation. If I drill a hole in a freeze plug, have I illegally manufactured a baffle, and therefore a suppressor? The laws have completely missed the target and failed at the intended goal.

    NFA is too mainstream now for the ATF’s liking. Why the hell they are still getting away with setting an arbitrary limit on things like barrel length is beyond me. Only a self-righteous liberal could pat themselves on the back and feel good about writing such poorly directed laws. Suppressors shouldn’t be feared, they should be mandatory within city limits!

  47. avatar louis Ringe says:

    And why are we not suprised?

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email