Quantcast
Any news/info on the Sig MPX-C? - THR
THR  

Go Back   THR > Social Situations > Legal

Welcome to THR
You are currently viewing our site as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, articles and access our other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have, access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!


If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please visit the help section.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old December 27, 2014, 02:53 AM   #1
Chains12
Member
 
 
Join Date: December 5, 2014
Location: East Central Indiana
Posts: 6
Any news/info on the Sig MPX-C?

With the help of obtaining my NFA Trust and paperwork to own NFA restricted products soon, suppressors mainly being my goal, I've decided the steep price for the new Sig MPX-C will be worth the fun and use of my first suppressed subgun chambered in 9mm. I've got about 2000 9mm cases and projectiles just waiting till be reloaded and don't even own a 9mm pistol so why not right? The problem is that I haven't really heard much about the ongoing lawsuit over the muzzle device with the ATF. I'd really like to buy the gun now and add the suppressor tube later, but I have no idea when or if they're available to buy/order yet due to the dispute in question. Does anybody know anything about this? Google doesn't turn up anything recent and I really hope Sig wins and begins distributing to dealers for legal civilian purchase. Also, on a somewhat related note, I'm guessing you've got to buy the caliber conversions for .40S&W and .357SIG separately from the carbine itself correct? Couldn't find any info on that either. Thanks for any help!
Chains12 is offline  
Old December 27, 2014, 04:26 AM   #2
smalls
Member
 
 
Join Date: February 8, 2011
Location: Macomb County, MI
Posts: 2,375
Quote:
my first suppressed subgun chambered in 9mm
Quote:
I really hope Sig wins and begins distributing to dealers for legal civilian purchase
You're talking about 2 seperate guns there. There's no such thing as a post '68 sub gun legal for civilian purchase.
__________________
If gun owners are as violent as anti-gunners said we are, there wouldn't be any anti's left.
smalls is offline  
Old December 28, 2014, 11:32 AM   #3
Chains12
Member
 
 
Join Date: December 5, 2014
Location: East Central Indiana
Posts: 6
Ok. I didn't say 'sub machine gun', I said sub gun. I just meant that as the light semi auto carbine that it is. In no way shape or form did I mean anything about an automatic weapon. It's what I understand to be all light pistol caliber semi auto carbines. They look fun. I asked a question and got a smart response so I doubt I'll waste much more time on this forum.
Chains12 is offline  
Old December 28, 2014, 11:40 AM   #4
Armor Snail
Member
 
 
Join Date: August 29, 2013
Posts: 441
That's post 86 BTW. FOPA

Not 68, GCA
Armor Snail is offline  
Old December 28, 2014, 01:35 PM   #5
Speedo66
Member
 
 
Join Date: May 31, 2008
Posts: 2,109
I also thought you meant an automatic weapon. Sig's site refers to the MPX as a submachine gun. Further down they mention the C version is a semi. There's generally a lot of good info here.

I didn't think the answer was "smart', but I'm also not thin skinned.
Speedo66 is offline  
Old December 28, 2014, 01:40 PM   #6
smalls
Member
 
 
Join Date: February 8, 2011
Location: Macomb County, MI
Posts: 2,375
Quote:
Ok. I didn't say 'sub machine gun', I said sub gun. I just meant that as the light semi auto carbine that it is. In no way shape or form did I mean anything about an automatic weapon. It's what I understand to be all light pistol caliber semi auto carbines. They look fun. I asked a question and got a smart response so I doubt I'll waste much more time on this forum.
I apologize if it seemed like a smart ass comment, wasn't my intention. There's a lot of people that just don't know the law. FWIW, most of us use the term subgun to mean sub machine gun, so that's what I thought you meant.

Quote:
That's post 86 BTW. FOPA

Not 68, GCA
that's what happens when I THR as I'm falling asleep
__________________
If gun owners are as violent as anti-gunners said we are, there wouldn't be any anti's left.
smalls is offline  
Old December 28, 2014, 01:46 PM   #7
Frank Ettin
Moderator
 
 
Join Date: April 29, 2006
Location: California - San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 7,949
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chains12
I didn't say 'sub machine gun', I said sub gun. I just meant that as the light semi auto carbine that it is.
Well "sub gun" is a pretty common sobriquet for "submachine gun", so the confusion was understandable. Personally I've never heard or seen the term "sub gun" used to describe a light, semi-automatic, pistol caliber carbine.

Chains12, you've gotten some good information here -- although it might have been somewhat off the mark given the misunderstanding.

Now that's cleared up, perhaps we can focus on the OP's actual question.
__________________
"Though boys throw stones at frogs in sport, the frogs do not die in sport, but in earnest." Bion (Greek poet, ca. 100 BCE)
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old December 28, 2014, 02:43 PM   #8
barnbwt
Member
 
 
Join Date: August 14, 2011
Posts: 3,881
I'd heard the pistol was a go, but not the rifle, because of the unresolved baffle stack/muzzle break on the barrel that is needed to push past 16"/26" length. The pistol has the baffles lopped off, but the gun won't function with a longer solid barrel, so the baffles were needed for both length and to keep the rifled portion short enough.

TCB
__________________
"The pistol stabilizing brace was neither “designed” nor approved to be used as a shoulder stock, and therefore use as a shoulder stock constitutes a “redesign” of the device because a possessor has changed the very function of the item." --BATFE
barnbwt is offline  
Old December 28, 2014, 08:41 PM   #9
Chains12
Member
 
 
Join Date: December 5, 2014
Location: East Central Indiana
Posts: 6
My bad, my blunder then. No harm no foul. The title of the thread just clearly says MPX-C so I figured it was a well known variation being it was such a hit at Shot14 and was likely to be realeased to public/civilian market. Anyways, I knew it was locked up in court but the last bit of news id heard was that Sig had been given until Nov 1 to reply to whatever the ATF had come up with as far as how they wanted to classify the gun. It appeared that Sig Sauer was very hopeful and had good spirits about the verdict since the ATF used a sample gun to test whether or not the muzzle device did in fact suppress any noise like they had claimed. The test came back to conclude that the muzzle device actually made it louder than with no muzzle device and Sig Sauer was really pleased with that of course. Still, I haven't heard any recent news and figured maybe someone else on here was closer to the industry and could shed a little light.
Chains12 is offline  
Old December 30, 2014, 02:39 PM   #10
Darkbob
Member
 
 
Join Date: July 14, 2010
Location: Now in IA
Posts: 162
No industry ties here, but according to This Article from Guns.com, neither SIG nor ATF is expecting this to go to trial. But if it does, the trial should start about June 16, 2015.

As a side note, I see the AFT's point on this one. At least just by looking at it, it looks like all you'd have to do is put a tube on it and the "Brake" becomes a monocore-style silencer's guts. Still, I'm hopeful that SIG wins out, just not that confident that they will. It may be decided by how much work it would take to put a tube on it. If the MPX-C is already threaded to receive a tube, then I can't see Sig winning.
Darkbob is offline  
Old December 31, 2014, 09:36 AM   #11
Ryanxia
Member
 
 
Join Date: June 18, 2010
Location: In the trenches for Liberty.
Posts: 3,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkbob View Post
As a side note, I see the AFT's point on this one. At least just by looking at it, it looks like all you'd have to do is put a tube on it and the "Brake" becomes a monocore-style silencer's guts. Still, I'm hopeful that SIG wins out, just not that confident that they will. It may be decided by how much work it would take to put a tube on it. If the MPX-C is already threaded to receive a tube, then I can't see Sig winning.
The issue is the fact that a judge rightly ruled (for once) that the ATF needs to define what a suppressor is.

They are calling something with absolutely no sound dampening properties a silencer which is a slippery slope. Could it be easily converted to an illegal silencer? Yes, so can a $3 oil filter but you don't get 10 years for having an unmodified filter.

What are they going to classify a silencer next? Empty soda bottle? Brillo pad under the sink? Water bottle? (Obviously if you modify those items yes you're in trouble). To call something that does nothing to dampen the report of a gunshot a silencer is getting into some Orwellian 1984 stuff.
__________________
Join NRA Today!
Takes 2 minutes to donate to NRA-ILA https://www.nraila.org/get-involved-...re/donate.aspx

www.odb.org
Ryanxia is offline  
Old December 31, 2014, 01:47 PM   #12
barnbwt
Member
 
 
Join Date: August 14, 2011
Posts: 3,881
...or an unnaturally long barrel, for that matter
__________________
"The pistol stabilizing brace was neither “designed” nor approved to be used as a shoulder stock, and therefore use as a shoulder stock constitutes a “redesign” of the device because a possessor has changed the very function of the item." --BATFE
barnbwt is offline  
Old December 31, 2014, 01:51 PM   #13
Vodoun da Vinci
Member
 
 
Join Date: September 17, 2013
Location: Illinois
Posts: 1,615
I'm seriously thirsty for an MPX-C and I'd settle for having a 16" barrel except I think Sig said that doesn't work. I'm hoping they sort that "suppressor" thing out and either release the gun as designed or change to something that meets the barrel length issue that can't be turned into a suppressor.

I think it's good that some manufacturers are challenging convention and making the BATF "think" about how things really are. But I'm in the market for an MP5 style pistol caliber carbine and the MPX-C is my preferred platform if I can get one. I think the dealie they have on the end looks needlessly complex...can't they add something more benign looking to get the 16" requirement and release the gun?

Get on with it already!

VooDoo
__________________
Beretta Px4 9mm subcompact, Glock 26 Gen4, Dan Wesson 15-2VH .357 Magnum, Ruger LCR .38 Special +P, Colt 1903 Model M .32ACP, Ruger 3 screw Blackhawk .357 Magnum, Ruger Bearcat .22, S&W Model 19 .357 Magnum, Colt Officers ACP .45, Glock 42, Beretta Pico
Vodoun da Vinci is offline  
Old January 2, 2015, 12:45 PM   #14
Darkbob
Member
 
 
Join Date: July 14, 2010
Location: Now in IA
Posts: 162
Just to be clear, I do hope that Sig wins, and quite frankly I'd like the entirety of the NFA rules to be ruled unconstitutional. That said, I don't know that the ATF is calling the brake a complete and functional silencer, as far as I know they are calling the brake a "silencer part". For NFA purposes, a silencer and a silencer part are synonymous.

Just by looking at it, the brake has obvious similarities with a monocore-style silencer. There are plenty of silencer builds that use a similar approach (ex. milling out a bull barrel 10-22 barrel and putting a tube over it) Link to an example here.

It's currently illegal (whether constitutional or not) to manufacture a single silencer part without the proper approval, and I think that's what the ATF taking issue with.

It doesn't matter how functional (as in reducing noise) a single baffle is that I turn out on a lathe. As soon as I make a single baffle, if I don't have the stamped ATF form, I've broken the law. I don't even need to be able to attach the part to a firearm. According to the current law, it's a no-no to make silencer parts.
Darkbob is offline  
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Optimisation by vB Optimise.
This site, its contents, Shooting Reviews, and its contents are Copyright (c) 2010-2013 Firearms Forum, Inc.
IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER
Although The High Road has attempted to provide accurate information on the forum, The High Road assumes no responsibility for the accuracy of the information. All information is provided "as is" with all faults without warranty of any kind, either express or implied. Neither The High Road nor any of its directors, members, managers, employees, agents, vendors, or suppliers will be liable for any direct, indirect, general, bodily injury, compensatory, special, punitive, consequential, or incidental damages including, without limitation, lost profits or revenues, costs of replacement goods, loss or damage to data arising out of the use or inability to use this forum or any services associated with this forum, or damages from the use of or reliance on the information present on this forum, even if you have been advised of the possibility of such damages.