PDA

View Full Version : Sig Sauer Sues BATFE for Classifying Muzzle Brake as Suppressor



MoxyDave
9 April 2014, 19:40
A while ago Sig Sauer introduced a new line of pistol-caliber carbines, including a model with a built-in "muzzle break" called the MPX-C (http://www.sigsauer.com/CatalogProductDetails/sig-mpx-c.aspx).

The MPX-C has a 6.5" barrel with 9.5" muzzle brake permanently attached. Basically it's a monocore baffle stack permanently attached to the end of the barrel. You buy the "silencer" separately, which is simply a hollow tube that screws over the baffle stack.

This is in line with many previous ATF classifications that consider the "serialized part" the actual silencer for NFA purposes. Many suppressors are now user-serviceable and the "serialized part" is just the outer tube.

Sig has sued the ATF for classifying their muzzle brake as a suppressor, claiming economic injury.

Another interesting case to watch!

Read more here (http://soldiersystems.net/2014/04/09/sig-sauer-sues-batfe-classifying-muzzle-break-suppressor/)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzUymvrrfXo

UWone77
11 April 2014, 00:06
You know Dave, I'm kind of on the fence on this one. I mean, great for Sig, if they have the funds and time to sue the ATF, I say go for it. I've always believed that NFA items should be over the counter. Heck if they still want to charge the NFA tax, fine, but let me have my item the same day.

Anyhow, to me the ATF has always ruled that baffles are basically the suppressor. Heck you can't even get replacement baffles without sending your can in. Any competent machinist could make a sleeve over that and have a suppressor, yes it would be illegal, but instead of shooting oil filters, all you have to do is get a sleeve. Having said that, the mono-core by itself I don't even see how you could call it a brake, we all know what it really is!

Battle Cock
11 April 2014, 00:22
Any competent machinist could make a sleeve over that and have a suppressor
From the looks of it, I'd say you'd only need a roll of duct tape to get a suppressor that lasts for more than just a couple magazines of 9mm.

GOST
11 April 2014, 04:13
That thing reminds of the internals of the Houston Armory Integral Suppressed 300 Blackout Upper.

MoxyDave
11 April 2014, 12:40
You know Dave, I'm kind of on the fence on this one. I mean, great for Sig, if they have the funds and time to sue the ATF, I say go for it. I've always believed that NFA items should be over the counter. Heck if they still want to charge the NFA tax, fine, but let me have my item the same day.

Anyhow, to me the ATF has always ruled that baffles are basically the suppressor. Heck you can't even get replacement baffles without sending your can in. Any competent machinist could make a sleeve over that and have a suppressor, yes it would be illegal, but instead of shooting oil filters, all you have to do is get a sleeve. Having said that, the mono-core by itself I don't even see how you could call it a brake, we all know what it really is!

I hear you man. It's a blatant middle finger to the ATF. However they make determinations all the time based on minute details so if SIG wants to challenge them based on a minute detail I say "Bravo!". The more heat they get from various sources, the more difficult it becomes for them in the long run to support all their NFA shenanigans.

Battle Cock
11 April 2014, 12:53
if SIG wants to challenge them based on a minute detail I say "Bravo!". The more heat they get from various sources, the more difficult it becomes for them in the long run to support all their NFA shenanigans.

Amen and amen. They can and should be beaten back.

MoxyDave
18 April 2014, 19:39
Daddy like!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meh1dXPtaTA

Battle Cock
18 April 2014, 23:35
That magazine wobble on FA weirds me out.

rayjax82
22 April 2014, 00:11
Any competent machinist could make a sleeve over that and have a suppressor,

Give me about 30 minutes on that, they're not even trying to be sneaky about it.

TAZ
29 April 2014, 12:13
This is interesting. I'm not an expert, but aside from length and # of chambers how is the SIG "break" different from any other multi chamber muzzle break?

This is whatnots wrong with making determinations based in what could happen vs what is happening. Does that device reduce the sound signature of the weapon or not is all that should matter. Whether someone could easily machine a tube or duct tape a paper towel tube over it is irrelevant.

Hope Sig has good fortune.

UWone77
29 April 2014, 12:55
This is interesting. I'm not an expert, but aside from length and # of chambers how is the SIG "break" different from any other multi chamber muzzle break?

This is whatnots wrong with making determinations based in what could happen vs what is happening. Does that device reduce the sound signature of the weapon or not is all that should matter. Whether someone could easily machine a tube or duct tape a paper towel tube over it is irrelevant.

Hope Sig has good fortune.


Actually it is relevant. They are marketing it as a brake, but clearly offering a sleeve to complete it as a suppressor as well.

TAZ
30 April 2014, 14:39
Actually it is relevant. They are marketing it as a brake, but clearly offering a sleeve to complete it as a suppressor as well.

How is that different from AAC offering an upper with a 51t brake on it and then offering a sleeve to put over the brake? In both the Sig and AAC case the sound level of the weapon system does not decrease until a sleeve is purchased and put over the muzzle device. Granted one sleeve is far more complex than the other, but nine the less without such a sleeve the sound of the gun is not reduced.

Silly; yes, but then so are these stupid, subjective rulings issued by the ATF.

UWone77
27 June 2014, 14:29
How is that different from AAC offering an upper with a 51t brake on it and then offering a sleeve to put over the brake? In both the Sig and AAC case the sound level of the weapon system does not decrease until a sleeve is purchased and put over the muzzle device. Granted one sleeve is far more complex than the other, but nine the less without such a sleeve the sound of the gun is not reduced.

Silly; yes, but then so are these stupid, subjective rulings issued by the ATF.

Easy,

The 51T Brake needs more than just a "sleeve" to suppress rounds. A 51T is just a mount. By your comparison, a threaded barrel is part of a suppressor.

You can argue this all day, and in the end, I'm agreeing with you... these laws are silly, the NFA needs to be abolished, and cans, SBR's MG's need to be available like any other gun over the counter.

Looks like Sig is suspending the lawsuit so the ATF can have more time to "reconsider"



By agreement, approved by the U.S. District Court of New Hampshire, Sig will “stay” it’s lawsuit against the ATF until Sept. 17. In the meantime, both sides agree, Sig will send the ATF a sample of its muzzle brake for review and the ATF will issue a ruling, its third, by Aug. 6.

Faced with the federal lawsuit, which also names U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder as a defendant, the U.S. Attorney’s office notified Sig that it would reconsider its two prior decisions that call Sig’s muzzle brake an item “intended only for use” when making a silencer. The ATF asked the federal court to give it time to “review the matter and issue a new decision,” according to court records.

Terms of an agreement, filed with the federal court, say that if the ATF’s decision is agreeable to Sig, the Newington firearms manufacturer “will have obtained the relive sought without further litigation,” If the ATF again rules that Sig’s product is a silencer component, the federal civil suit will proceed, according to the agreement approved by federal Judge Paul Barbadaro.

MoxyDave
28 June 2014, 12:42
Very interesting. Thank you for the update.

MoxyDave
12 September 2014, 11:22
Aaaaand the saga continues ... ATF has again determined that this is a silencer (http://www.guns.com/2014/09/10/dispute-continues-after-atf-again-classifies-sigs-muzzle-device-as-silencer/)

Ryo
3 October 2014, 19:51
I can see how ATF sees it as a suppressor part.. though I hope Sig wins.

Nathan_Mack
5 October 2014, 10:58
I hear you man. It's a blatant middle finger to the ATF. However they make determinations all the time based on minute details so if SIG wants to challenge them based on a minute detail I say "Bravo!". The more heat they get from various sources, the more difficult it becomes for them in the long run to support all their NFA shenanigans.

I'm not on the fence at all. I am with Sig on this one:

Sig Sauer has literally already shown the absurdity of the ATF SBR classification with the design and approval of the SB15 AR15 pistol brace. It's glorious in design and I think Sig should partner with KAK to market brace/buffer tube kits, too.

Again I think Sig has a real and legal opportunity to put the ATF on their rear about suppressor regulations, too. There is already precedent: every suppressor company on the planet making QD mounted suppressors uses the attachment device (in muzzle brake form) as a functional portion of the first suppressor baffle. So isn't the QD brake then intrinsically a non-serialized nor regulated component of the suppressor it mates to? Why then does the muzzle brake have to look "traditional" and not like on that Sig 9mm gun?

Issues arise in the fact that the ATF is not bound (apparently) by normal Constitutional and legislative means of rule and lawmaking. If the ATF generally reports to no one before making rules, what legal standing are they [Sig] going to (hopefully) win? Even if they squash ATF on the standing of a muzzle brake all they have to do is impose a new regulation that, per ce, "a suppressor must be a self-contained, non-disassembling unit of housing and baffle network and must be serialized as a whole unit and no individual components thereof will be legally manufactured as a serialized suppressor". Done. End game.

I'm rooting for Sig.