sixgundunn
Wheelgunner
The ATF has ruled that solvent traps are silencers and shut down SD Tacticals kit business. Google it for more information. Be wary.
Solvent traps
- Thread starter sixgundunn
- Start date
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!
Member Benefits:
BS. An overzealous field agent overstepped his authority. They are back in business, as are all of the other solvent trap vendors. Based on this agents interpretation, everyone who owns a Maglite or an automobile with an internal combustion engine would be guilty of owning "suppressor parts". All NAPA, Pep Boys, Auto Zone, etc. store would be selling "suppressor parts" (freeze plugs). These parts do not become suppressor parts until you drill a hole in them.
I have two Form 1 cans made from SD parts. Uncle Sugar knows I have them, they are serial numbered and licensed, and I am not worried.
I have two Form 1 cans made from SD parts. Uncle Sugar knows I have them, they are serial numbered and licensed, and I am not worried.
It's actually a very slippery slope. Here's the deal. If you go to the NFA Handbook on the ATF's website
https://www.atf.gov/file/58251/download
you will see the following definition for silencers:
The question is---at what point do these very innocent items become regulated silencer parts? As we have seen by the flurry of letters regarding Sig braces, the ATF can at times change their minds, contradict themselves, and use reasoning that doesn't really make much sense.
We don't have any control whatsoever over how ATF interprets the laws and regulations related to Title II firearms, however we can act as conservatively as possible to protect ourselves from ending up on the wrong side of said interpretation.
Therefore, my advice has always been to have an approved Form 1 in hand prior to obtaining any parts that will become a suppressor. And because there is some trial and error and testing involved in building your own can (which may require extra baffles or other parts which could be interpreted by ATF to be unlicensed suppressors), I always recommend home suppressor builders file two Form 1s. Once they are approved, have both tubes engraved. That way you can 100% legally possess two complete baffle sets for testing and evaluation purposes.
Just a little unsolicited advice. Happy building!
https://www.atf.gov/file/58251/download
you will see the following definition for silencers:
The question is---at what point do these very innocent items become regulated silencer parts? As we have seen by the flurry of letters regarding Sig braces, the ATF can at times change their minds, contradict themselves, and use reasoning that doesn't really make much sense.
We don't have any control whatsoever over how ATF interprets the laws and regulations related to Title II firearms, however we can act as conservatively as possible to protect ourselves from ending up on the wrong side of said interpretation.
Therefore, my advice has always been to have an approved Form 1 in hand prior to obtaining any parts that will become a suppressor. And because there is some trial and error and testing involved in building your own can (which may require extra baffles or other parts which could be interpreted by ATF to be unlicensed suppressors), I always recommend home suppressor builders file two Form 1s. Once they are approved, have both tubes engraved. That way you can 100% legally possess two complete baffle sets for testing and evaluation purposes.
Just a little unsolicited advice. Happy building!
I wish people would get their terminology right. It is suppressors, not silencers. The device suppresses sound signature, it doesn't silence it.
You would think some people in the industry would be wiser, use the correct terminology. Even the originator of the HPA in 2015 refers to the devices as silencers. But he is a dumb politician, not a enthusiast or vendor in firearms, or Class III devices.
You would think some people in the industry would be wiser, use the correct terminology. Even the originator of the HPA in 2015 refers to the devices as silencers. But he is a dumb politician, not a enthusiast or vendor in firearms, or Class III devices.
John, I know that his seems to be a going notion on the internet lately, but I am going to have to disagree with you. The legal terminology is silencer. It is the terminology within all federal law, on Mr. Maxim's initial patent, and on all of the thousands of federal tax stamps that have passed through my hands.
Suppressor may be a more accurate descriptive term and is certainly an acceptable synonym, but the legally correct term has been, and, absent a massive revision of federal law, will continue to be silencer.
Ok Kenny, I will concede, you have way more experience in this field than I do, especially on the legal side. But I will use the term suppressor myself.
And that is absolutely OK. I use the term can most of the time, but also use silencer and suppressor regularly. I agree that from a functional standpoint, what these items do is suppress sound. I also understand that 2A advocates (such as myself) spend an awful lot of time explaining to the general public that silencers are anything but silent.
I genuinely don't blame you for your misinformation. Unfortunately, there have been an awful lot of people lately who have been very insistent on various forms of social media that the term silencer is incorrect---even when presented with overwhelming evidence that not only is silencer not an incorrect term, it is (from a legal standpoint) the most correct term. If you look at the screen shots of the NFA Handbook's definition of silencers and to the source material which it quotes 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(24) https://www.atf.gov/file/55371/download you will see that suppressor is not a term that is legally defined in federal law. However, they do define muffler as a synonym for silencer and that would also be a legally correct term to use.
But as long as you are not writing laws, any word you want to use is just fine.
Have a good one!
On the ATF Form 1's and Form 4's that I have showing my approvals, they all say Silencer. So.... I understand how you may feel about this but legally in the USA they use the term Silencer. I use the terms interchangeably and I don't understand why some people try to take such a hard stance on not using the term Silencer, but if you've ever bought one you, you'd know what the gov't calls them. Silencers. I have 11 and they all say the same thing.
He is correct. As far as the ATF and federal government is concerned, they are "SILENCERS". We all know they don't silence, but suppress sound... however, for all intent and purposes, they are officially "SILENCERS".
Last edited:
Meplat is correct. These devices started with the name "silencer" and even tho they have been greatly improved over the early models, the designation "suppressor" or "sound suppressor" didn't come into play until much later. The names are synonymous and I'll bet there's not one person on this forum that wouldn't know what I'm talking about if I say I'm buying a silencer for my firearm.
But if it makes anybody feel any better, I do get mildly irritated when someone refers to a magazine as a "clip" or overuses the word "tactical"
I wanted to post up I was at Interstate Guns in Hammond last week and they charge $40 for Class III transfer on site electronic fingerprints and photo, and they keep data on file and good for 2 years. While some charge $100. That crew at Interstate Guns is first rate and squared away. They have some nice cans available and very reasonable prices to boot.
Last edited:
machinedrummer
Well-Known Member
I thought Steven Segal made one that made his rifle silent? I saw it with my own two eyes.
Segal used to volunteer/ride with the JPSO and Harry Lee. They had a reality tv show about it for a while. I was a fan of Segal and his early movies.
I'm glad to hear Interstate is doing prints as well. We do the same thing and it takes a lot of the hassle out of the process. I'm not a big fan of solvent traps/oil filter cans---most of my customers who have done them and then moved on to commercial silencers feel like the solvent traps were fun when they got them but once they start using the real thing it feels like a waste of money. But to each their own.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
gone
Last edited:
I think that is awesome. Anything we can get people to enjoy the sport with is great. And I know that at some point those solvent can folks will likely step up to bigger and better things.
I'm not sure if you think you are needling me with the whole Interstate Guns thing, but let me clear the air. I get along very well with every FFL I've ever met. I've never met the crew at Interstate as they aren't in my neck of the woods, but I've heard they have some nice stuff and in fact have sent people there for lines I don't carry like Nightforce as I'd rather see another local business get the sale than the internet.
And I'm glad they are also doing live scan pics and prints. Our pricing is similar for pics and prints but tiered. For first time pics and prints we are $45 (discounted to $35 for items you are purchasing from us) and $25 for reprints (discounted to $25 for items you are purchasing from us).
Have a nice day.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Solvent Traps, Etc. raided by the ATF and facing criminal charges. Yikes.
https://m.facebook.com/SolventTrapsEtc/
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
https://m.facebook.com/SolventTrapsEtc/
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
