how to permanently attach muzzle device - rocksett?

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!
  • thperez1972

    ESSAYONS
    Staff member
    Gold Member
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Dec 28, 2015
    5,714
    113
    Baton Rouge, LA
    From the ATF:
    "The ATF procedure for measuring barrel length is to measure from the closed bolt (or breech-face) to
    the furthermost end of the barrel or permanently attached muzzle device. Permanent methods of
    attachment include full-fusion gas or electric steel-seam welding, high-temperature (1100°F) silver
    soldering, or blind pinning with the pin head welded over. Barrels are measured by inserting a dowel rod
    into the barrel until the rod stops against the bolt or breech-face. The rod is then marked at the
    furthermost end of the barrel or permanently attached muzzle device, withdrawn from the barrel, and
    measured."

    The ATF says "permanent methods...include" rather than "permanent methods...are." Has the ATF provided any other examples of acceptable or unacceptable methods? I'm specifically wondering about rocksett.
     

    thperez1972

    ESSAYONS
    Staff member
    Gold Member
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Dec 28, 2015
    5,714
    113
    Baton Rouge, LA
    I'm not worried about that guy's opinion. I'm asking about the ATF's opinion.
     

    rcm192

    Sic semper tyrannis
    Staff member
    Rating - 100%
    111   0   0
    May 31, 2010
    6,207
    63
    New Orleans area
    I'm not worried about that guy's opinion. I'm asking about the ATF's opinion.

    You can remove a brake that's been installed with rocksett and torque. I have personally done it with a reaction rod and a breakerbar. So I'm not sure how permanent it is. It serves its purpose without a doubt but I personally do not think its a permanent way to keep a muzzle device attached for legal purposes based on my experiences.


    Also based on Rocksetts safety data sheet it says that its water soluable. Which would explain why a brake came off easily when my gunsmith boiled that end of the barrel in a pot of H20.

    https://www.flexbar.com/products/rocksett
     
    Last edited:

    Saw

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    18   0   0
    Oct 6, 2008
    388
    16
    New Orleans
    Cut and paste from ATF handbook:

    The ATF procedure for measuring barrel length is to measure from the closed bolt (or breech-face) to the furthermost end of the barrel or permanently attached muzzle device. Permanent methods of attachment include full-fusion gas or electric steel-seam welding, high-temperature (1100°F) silver soldering, or blind pinning with the pin head welded over. Barrels are measured by inserting a dowel rod into the barrel until the rod stops against the bolt or breech-face. The rod is then marked at the furthermost end of the barrel or permanently attached muzzle device, withdrawn from the barrel, and measured.
     

    thperez1972

    ESSAYONS
    Staff member
    Gold Member
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Dec 28, 2015
    5,714
    113
    Baton Rouge, LA
    You can remove a brake that's been installed with rocksett and torque. I have personally done it with a reaction rod and a breakerbar. So I'm not sure how permanent it is. It serves its purpose without a doubt but I personally do not think its a permanent way to keep a muzzle device attached for legal purposes based on my experiences.

    You can remove a silver soldered muzzle device. It's not permanent. But it's permanent enough. That's what I'm trying to find. What else is on the list that includes welding and silver soldering? If the ATF intended for those to be the only approved methods, wouldn't they have said those were the only methods rather than saying those were included?
     

    thperez1972

    ESSAYONS
    Staff member
    Gold Member
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Dec 28, 2015
    5,714
    113
    Baton Rouge, LA
    Cut and paste from ATF handbook:

    The ATF procedure for measuring barrel length is to measure from the closed bolt (or breech-face) to the furthermost end of the barrel or permanently attached muzzle device. Permanent methods of attachment include full-fusion gas or electric steel-seam welding, high-temperature (1100°F) silver soldering, or blind pinning with the pin head welded over. Barrels are measured by inserting a dowel rod into the barrel until the rod stops against the bolt or breech-face. The rod is then marked at the furthermost end of the barrel or permanently attached muzzle device, withdrawn from the barrel, and measured.

    Exactly. Hence my question. Types of birds include ducks, geese, and swans. That doesn't mean ducks, geese, and swans are the only types of birds. That means there is a list of types of birds and ducks, geese, and swans are included on the list. Has the ATF ever made an official ruling for or against any other method?
     

    Saw

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    18   0   0
    Oct 6, 2008
    388
    16
    New Orleans
    Take it up with the ATF. Add it to the list of BS from them. Rocksett is nothing close to permanent. That stuff has a very low torque requirement to break free. It’s selling point is it is heat resistant. Works awesome for what it is.
     

    rcm192

    Sic semper tyrannis
    Staff member
    Rating - 100%
    111   0   0
    May 31, 2010
    6,207
    63
    New Orleans area
    I read it. My original question holds. Has the ATF provided any other examples of acceptable or unacceptable methods?

    Ive looked and cannot find any. As aforementioned the best bet would probably be to give the atf a call for clarification and report back if you do.

    If it is deemed acceptable by the ATF to use rocksett will this be your preferred method permanent of attachment?
     

    thperez1972

    ESSAYONS
    Staff member
    Gold Member
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Dec 28, 2015
    5,714
    113
    Baton Rouge, LA
    Ive looked and cannot find any. As aforementioned the best bet would probably be to give the atf a call for clarification and report back if you do.

    If it is deemed acceptable by the ATF to use rocksett will this be your preferred method permanent of attachment?

    Not necessarily. I picked up a 13.5" Troy Delta rail a while back in a trade. I'm not a huge fan of that rail but I recently got a 14.5" barrel with a fsb at a pretty good price so why not build another range toy. I really don't want to throw a brace on it because it's so close to a rifle. Before I got a muzzle device welded on there I figured I check out what other options I have. The general consensus seems to be people view the word "include" as "are only" rather than the conventional definition of "contain as part of a whole." I think that's because if they use a method specifically mentioned, they know they are covered. I'd prefer to not ask the ATF if the question has been asked and answered. And I find it surprising nobody has asked them before and gotten an official response.
     

    MGshooter

    Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 20, 2013
    18
    3
    Denham Springs
    It has been asked about chemical adhesives and denied ( letters are generally only good for the person they are sent to ) , keep looking as they will be on older forums because no one has asked in a long time . The methods listed would include them if it was an approved method . A method not listed but one that would pass would be fusion spin welding , it's jut not a good method for what we are needing to accomplish . Also the ones listed are easily done so not sure why someone would want another .
     

    thperez1972

    ESSAYONS
    Staff member
    Gold Member
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Dec 28, 2015
    5,714
    113
    Baton Rouge, LA
    It has been asked about chemical adhesives and denied ( letters are generally only good for the person they are sent to ) , keep looking as they will be on older forums because no one has asked in a long time . The methods listed would include them if it was an approved method . A method not listed but one that would pass would be fusion spin welding , it's jut not a good method for what we are needing to accomplish . Also the ones listed are easily done so not sure why someone would want another .

    With very little thought needed, I can think of 4 reasons why someone would want another option:
    1. People may not own the equipment to weld or solder the muzzle device.
    2. People may not want to heat the barrel to the temp needed to solder.
    3. Convenience.
    4. Choices.

    Saying "the ones listed are good enough so why would you want something different" is akin to saying "this rifle is good enough so why would you want an AR."

    A letter sent saying a particular adhesive is not allowed would cover the adhesive, not just the adhesive being applied by a specific person. If those letters exist, they are certainly hard to locate. And the use of the word "include" rather than "are" indicates there are other methods approved but not listed. I'm fine with chemical adhesives not being approved if they are, in fact, not approved. But until the ATF indicates their list is exhaustive or states a particular chemical adhesive is not approved or indicates their standard for what they view as permanent (silver solder can be undone but is accepted), I'm going to continue to ask the question.
     

    Barry.McOkenar

    New Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 8, 2019
    2
    1
    Baton Rouge
    I think from a legal standpoint "include', "includes" or "including" can be interpreted to precede a restrictive list as opposed to only naming a few items from an unlimited list. However, any of the methods the ATF listed can be easily reversed in the same amount of time with proper tools as it would take to remove a muzzle device rocksett-ed in place. But of course, they are no stranger to asinine laws. If you want a definitive answer you won't be able to get one over the phone as most of the staff that answer the phone do not possess the knowledge or authority to give a determination. You would have to get a cheap barrel and rocksett a muzzle device onto it then send it to the Technology Branch with return shipping for a determination on whether or not rocksett would suffice. My guess is that you would get a letter back quoting the statute containing the above restrictive list as the only acceptable methods and you may or may not receive the barrel back.
     

    thperez1972

    ESSAYONS
    Staff member
    Gold Member
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Dec 28, 2015
    5,714
    113
    Baton Rouge, LA
    I think from a legal standpoint "include', "includes" or "including" can be interpreted to precede a restrictive list as opposed to only naming a few items from an unlimited list. However, any of the methods the ATF listed can be easily reversed in the same amount of time with proper tools as it would take to remove a muzzle device rocksett-ed in place. But of course, they are no stranger to asinine laws. If you want a definitive answer you won't be able to get one over the phone as most of the staff that answer the phone do not possess the knowledge or authority to give a determination. You would have to get a cheap barrel and rocksett a muzzle device onto it then send it to the Technology Branch with return shipping for a determination on whether or not rocksett would suffice. My guess is that you would get a letter back quoting the statute containing the above restrictive list as the only acceptable methods and you may or may not receive the barrel back.

    Include means "comprise or contain as part of a whole." So the listed methods are part of the whole set of methods. Might they be the only methods? Sure. A set can be a subset of itself. So from a legal standpoint, their wording is ambiguous and should have clarification. As you pointed out, the listed methods aren't "permanent." In that case, there might there be a threshold above which is legal and below which is not. It could be the time needed to remove the device. Or the force needed. And I would never call. There would be no accountability with a phone call. If anything, I would write a letter. I didn't think about sending in a barrel but I believe the reply would be too specific. They would likely tell me if that specific setup is viewed as permanent. The reply would not necessarily cover the next setup.
     

    Core

    Salt
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 5, 2011
    247
    28
    Maine
    Rocksett will eventually come loose over time. 1100 degree solder is too hot IMO to get the muzzle to that temp and flux it in. I'm not willing to temper the muzzle soft, and anything over 700 deg is in my opinion a risk. Electric Weld or Spot Weld and pin is the way to go. It's easy and cheap to pin and weld. You can do it with hobby welder just get the right sized welding rod.
     

    Magdump

    Don’t troll me bro!
    Rating - 100%
    163   0   0
    Dec 31, 2013
    9,396
    113
    Hammond, Louisiana
    I read somewhere that they approved lightning strike welds, if one was so inclined to go climb a tree in a thunderstorm and wave the barrel around...
     

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    195,232
    Messages
    1,546,157
    Members
    29,172
    Latest member
    ksgunner82
    Top Bottom