Sig Sauer Sues BATFE for Classifying Muzzle Brake as Suppressor

[MoxyDave]

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.

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

[UWone77]

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]

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]

That thing reminds of the internals of the Houston Armory Integral Suppressed 300 Blackout Upper.

[MoxyDave]

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]

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]

Daddy like!

[Battle Cock]

That magazine wobble on FA weirds me out.

[rayjax82]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Very interesting. Thank you for the update.

[MoxyDave]

Aaaaand the saga continues ... ATF has again determined that this is a silencer