form 1 instructions

This is more detailed than I'll type out here, haha. It's on the old paper form 1 and a couple tweaks have been made but it's a good start.

Basically, you'll make up a model name for your suppressor when talking about who makes it.

Sig has some great innovative products. Wish the govt was not so suffocating

quote:

---

not sure what the outcome of this was, but food for thought: http://www.guns.com/2014/04/15/sig-sues-atf/

---

Notice that has threads on the front of it. It's already basically the internals as all you have to do is screw on a threaded sleeve. The muzzle brake this guy makes doesn't have those threads.

quote:

---

What is the advantage of building the tube from titanium vs aluminum?

---

a materials engineer would probably better handle this, but I believe aluminum (certain grades) do not like the high heat/pressure that some firearms can produce. If it's a bolt/slow fire firearm, then aluminum tube would suffice (maybe). There are some cool videos of titanium suppressors on youtube, and those things glow on rapid/full-auto with no bulging.

So $450 break + sleeve + $300 Trust setup + $200 ATF stamp + threading/engraving costs? 6 month wait time on the sleeve?

That math look right?

6 months on the sleeve? 1 month for a form 1

So, as I'm looking at this thing, wrapping my head on how best to keep the sleeve affixed... would it be best to basically cap the end of the sleeve and then drill/tap a couple holes in the front of the brake and screw in that way?

http://www.guns.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/2-ATF-letter-to-SIG-8262013.pdf

There's the ATF letter. Only real important part is the last 4 paragraphs. All they do is note during the description of the item that the end is threaded nothing more. The part that seems they are more against is the shelf on the rear section that facilitates attachment of an outer tube.

The last three paragraphs don't mention either feature, but name it as a monolithic baffle stack, a common silencer component.


Just my take, I've been wrong before though.

Maybe weld the baffle to the end cap. Make the end cap diameter smaller so it slides tightly into the main tube. Then have three tiny Allen screws going through the tube and into the cap securing everything in place. Idk

quote:

---

What is the advantage of building the tube from titanium vs aluminum?

Strength?

---

Ti is 20% stronger than steel, but about 30%-40% lighter. It is not as light as aluminum, but significantly stronger.

Al tubes can be used on rimfire and some centerfire, but it is not as common because of the pressure.

Ti is also extremely efficient at dissipating heat.

quote:

---

So, as I'm looking at this thing, wrapping my head on how best to keep the sleeve affixed... would it be best to basically cap the end of the sleeve and then drill/tap a couple holes in the front of the brake and screw in that way?

---

Depends on what the cost of the tube ends up being. Either this with threaded sided that the tube threads onto, or an integral tube and cap with holes for screws in the front would work.

You could also have a machinist thread the base of the baffle stack so that the tube threads onto the stack, then have a threaded end cap on the tube.

I'm not seeing an image for the "flash suppressor"

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Does the manufacturer have an opinion letter from the ATF? In the past, ATF has ruled suppressor parts are regulated the same as a suppressor and you can't own baffles without having a "registered" can for them.

---

From what eyeguy states (as well as the pic) this is sold as a multi-chambered muzzle break. Once you add the shroud, then it's a suppressor. Firing this without the shroud should be interesting and legal

---

Exactly. That's why the front isn't threaded. If this were illegal simply because it can be retrofitted to be a suppressor, so would all oil filters...

---

You're trying to apply logic to the ATF. Remember, they once classified a shoe string as a machine gun.

Sig was told this type of set up is a no no by the ATF. If the manufacturer has a letter from the tech branch saying it's all good, then there's nothing to be concerned about. Sig still hasn't received one.

scatter!

quote:

---

not sure what the outcome of this was, but food for thought: http://www.guns.com/2014/04/15/sig-sues-atf/

---

Just looked into it. Apparently the BATFE has come back i think 4 times saying "nope, still a silencer" and so this case is finally getting ready to go to court. Both Sig and BATFE have submitted their formal statements and defenses to their position to the court. I suppose the next step is getting an actual judge's decision? not sure on that as i'm not a lawyer.

here is the case summary if you are interested:
http://michellawyers.com/sig-sauer-v-batfe-new-hampshire/

The issue with the Sig muzzle brake/baffle stack is that it is already threaded to accept their tube and end cap - and that is where the ATF took exception.

It's still illogical, because this:



is essentially the same thing as the Sig brake, just smaller. It is an integral part of the suppressor and is threaded to accept it. Just another moronic ruling by an agency that should not exist in the first place.

The brake that Eye Guy has is different, technically speaking, in that it is not threaded anywhere except to attach to the muzzle. You literally cannot argue that it is anything more than a muzzle brake because it will take significant modifications to allow conversion into a suppressor.

As far as shrouds are concerned what's the plan? Flashlight?

Has anyone looked at the "fake can muzzle brake" as an option? Length of 6.5"+ might be a problem there (?) maybe one of the manufacturers would do a limited run at the correct length?

quote:

---

Just another moronic ruling by an agency that should not exist in the first place.

---

quote:

---

As far as shrouds are concerned what's the plan? Flashlight?

Has anyone looked at the "fake can muzzle brake" as an option? Length of 6.5"+ might be a problem there (?) maybe one of the manufacturers would do a limited run at the correct length?

---

titanium tube with some sort of end cap

quote:

---

The issue with the Sig muzzle brake/baffle stack is that it is already threaded to accept their tube and end cap - and that is where the ATF took exception.

---

Maybe you're reading something different than me, but that is not what I got out of the atf letter at all. They spent an entire paragraph or two talking about it being monolithic baffle stack that is designed to be the internal part of a suppressor, only mentioned the threading in one sentence as a physical description.

I really don't see what difference the threading makes. What's easier? For me to go find a tube the correct diameter and the have the inside threaded correctly, or just go grab half a dozen coke cans cut open, wrap them around it and put pipe clamps around the whole thing??

For what it's worth I think the atf is stupid and the nfa unconstitutional, but unless there are other letters or some clarification by the atf, trying to call this brake different from sig's is grasping at straws.
You should be able to do this, have that crazy baffle on your gun, then the shroud would be serialized and the part that actually makes it a suppressor, but the atf are idiots.

quote:

---

quote:

---

The issue with the Sig muzzle brake/baffle stack is that it is already threaded to accept their tube and end cap - and that is where the ATF took exception.

---

Maybe you're reading something different than me, but that is not what I got out of the atf letter at all. They spent an entire paragraph or two talking about it being monolithic baffle stack that is designed to be the internal part of a suppressor, only mentioned the threading in one sentence as a physical description.

I really don't see what difference the threading makes. What's easier? For me to go find a tube the correct diameter and the have the inside threaded correctly, or just go grab half a dozen coke cans cut open, wrap them around it and put pipe clamps around the whole thing??

For what it's worth I think the atf is stupid and the nfa unconstitutional, but unless there are other letters or some clarification by the atf, trying to call this brake different from sig's is grasping at straws.
You should be able to do this, have that crazy baffle on your gun, then the shroud would be serialized and the part that actually makes it a suppressor, but the atf are idiots.

---

Except this isn't a set of baffles. What is on the sig gun is a set of baffles that was uncovered. This is a muzzle break that someone with some ingenuity can repurpose.

Like the idea, but the cost is going to end up the same as a comparable commercially available can. Looks like you'll save 3-4 months on the Form 1 vs 4 wait time though.

quote:

---

Like the idea, but the cost is going to end up the same as a comparable commercially available can. Looks like you'll save 3-4 months on the Form 1 vs 4 wait time though.

---

I would agree, but for some people (myself included), just learning about the process, sourcing parts, finding a shop, and doing it as a group is exciting and fun. It's kind of like why we build AR's.

Agree. Hell, there are times I spend more money to build something than I do to buy it outright, but it sure is cool to be able to say "I made that." Done some hand carved tobacco pipes. When you factor in the tools, sure I could have bought them for less, but it sure was cool to give one to my dad for his birthday and have a matching one so we could light up together.

quote:

---

Except this isn't a set of baffles. What is on the sig gun is a set of baffles that was uncovered. This is a muzzle break that someone with some ingenuity can repurpose.

---

Alright, so is this product ok because it isn't threaded? Or is it because it's a muzzle break?

I don't see any noticeable difference between this proposed product and the sig. They also claimed theirs was a muzzle break when they presented it to the ATF.

I'll go ahead and bow out of this thread and quit cluttering it with my skepticism. Hopefully Sig wins their suit and y'all end up with a quality, leagal, homemade silencer.

Because that literally is the baffle for their suppressor. The muzzle break is a muzzle break.

The difference is that sig just pulled the baffle out of their suppressor with no modifications.

Changing a muzzle brake into a suppressor at home is different than selling the baffle to an already existing suppressor.

quote:

---

The difference is that sig just pulled the baffle out of their suppressor with no modifications.

Changing a muzzle brake into a suppressor at home is different than selling the baffle to an already existing suppressor.

---

This would likely fall in to the "readily convertible" category. I just wonder why the manufacturer hasn't submitted a sample to the technology branch so they can get a ruling. It doesn't cost them anything and it assures their customers there is less of a chance the ATF is going to change their mind about the legality. Based on my experience dealing with the ATF as an 07/02 FFL manufacturing suppressors and other NFA items, this would fall in to their "readily convertible" catch all.

"Readily convertible" is a very subjective and open ended definition.

Why is a 2 chamber muzzle break with external threads that is designed to accept and is an integral part of a suppressor system completely fine, but a multi chamber break that would require welding or machining not acceptable?

The ATF needs to just die. We would all be better off.