Updates/ Cases: SBR vs. Actual ATF decision Permanent Attachment of Flash Suppressors

The Best online firearms community in Louisiana.

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • enigmedic

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    14   0   1
    Sep 14, 2010
    281
    28
    New Orleans area
    An interesting question was posed today at work regarding the CURRENT ATF posture on the attachment of flash suppressors and muzzle brakes (muzzle devices) to attain the required 16" barrel length. I emphasize "current" because their rulings have changed faster than the NASDAQ, varying even from office to office.
    At one time, "permanent attachment" could be achieved with commercial thread locking compounds such as Loc-Tite, which was the preferred method for obvious reasons. This was per local (Greater New Orleans) Field Agents during an audit/ inspection of a shop in the area. At the same time a Las Vegas area case was citing silver soldering as the only acceptable method (late 1990's).
    Jump now to present manufacturers who provide blind pinning and/or welding. I realize that manufacturers will always err on the side of caution as they have much more at stake, but is it required by law? Many shops such as ADCO offer pinning, welding, etc.,
    Does anyone here have an official decision by a court or the ATF technology branch? We are not looking for anecdotes or apocryphal "friend of a friend" wives tales; I can guess and speculate for myself. If anyone can provide documentation we would be grateful, I am sure other forum members would appreciate it, too, especially with all of the 14.5" barrel options out there.
    Godspeed,
    Paul
     
    Top Bottom