quieter still legal??

Why not email them and get the answer directly? According to their FAQ page, it's not considered a silencer by the ATF. If you want specifics on why, I can't think of a better source than the company themselves.

Gun barrels and barrel extensions are not "silencers".

All that is, is a long long long barrel which allows the powder to burn fully before it contacts the air and burns all at once. .

Nothing hinky or illegal about it. . .

it seems that all the expansion of gas is done in the barrel and not in a seperate chamber. Have you shot the primer only 22lr ammo? very quiet as well.

Originally posted by nalioth

Gun barrels and barrel extensions are not "silencers".

All that is, is a long long long barrel which allows the powder to burn fully before it contacts the air and burns all at once. .

Nothing hinky or illegal about it. . .

Click to expand...

What he said.. It's basically just a longer barrel.

Why are they not resticted??

Click to expand...

Because the ATF has apparently decided that they don't fit the definition.

Simple as that.

Extensions and bloop tubes fit the definition.
Why are they not resticted??

Click to expand...

As with a lot of things regarding the NFA and other gun laws, because the BATFE has been kind enough to say so!

If the manufacturer is advertising the system the way they are, I'd be quite willing to bet that they've asked the BATFE tech branch for a ruling on the matter. ATF has obviously written to them that this is simply a long barrel. As the ATF generally doesn't get into the business of regulating barrel length (so long as we're over the Title II minimums), and since there is nothing else to the system but a longer tube (no chambers, baffles, wipes, etc.) ruling this set-up to be illegal would be quite a stretch.

Second, as this makes the gun even larger and more unwieldy, even for a full-sized hunting arm, it's not like they're going to be opening themselves to public accusations of allowing criminals to arm themselves with these dangerous "silent murder weapons."

WE are getting hung up on their advertising patter. It would seem obvious to me that the BATFE must have ruled on the technical aspects of the system and decided that it isn't anything with which they need to concern themselves.

Ironically, this does seem to point out a pretty humorous dichotomy: If you add a 30" extension to the barrel of your gun and find that it reduces the noise signature by 25 db, that would be fine. If you add a 30" long expansion chamber with some baffles inside to the end of your barrel and find (through poor design or whatever) that you get a 24 db reduction in the noise signature, that would be an illegal suppressor. Probably.

-Sam

Their website says

This gun system has been cleared by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and is not considered to be a silencer.

Click to expand...

So, they probably have an opinion from Tech Branch that it's not a suppressor.

Problem with that is Tech Branch has been known to change their minds.

WHY doesn't atf consider these things silencers? What is the rationale? (Not somebody's guess - but the reason the ATF made the decision(s).) No-one knows?

Click to expand...

You'd have to read the tech branch letter to know what reason they gave the manufacturer.

Ironically, this does seem to point out a pretty humorous dichotomy: If you add a 30" extension to the barrel of your gun and find that it reduces the noise signature by 25 db, that would be fine. If you add a 30" long expansion chamber with some baffles inside to the end of your barrel and find (through poor design or whatever) that you get a 24 db reduction in the noise signature, that would be an illegal suppressor. Probably.

Click to expand...

I have said it before, anything that attaches to the barrel is a "silencer" if they say it is a "silencer" for just this reason.
Like those fake "silencer" props just to look cool that are generally legal? They extend the barrel length of the gun, so without a doubt they make the gun quieter even if they are just a hollow tube.

Take this information for example:
http://www.freehearingtest.com/hia_gunfirenoise.shtml

12 Gauge
28" barrel 151.50dB
26" barrel 156.10dB
18 _" barrel 161.50dB

10" of plain cylinder barrel remove a whopping 10 decibels.
That is huge if you understand the decibel system is logarithmic and not linear.

Now consider the ATF has stated that any device which reduces the discharge of a firearm by even 1 measured decibel is a "silencer".
Since even just a barrel extension would do that, it means virtually anything they say is a silencer is a silencer even if it is not.
Even if the report of the firearm with the device is louder than a plain barrel of the same total length would be, it is still a silencer if they say so. Because it still passes their legal test of being a "silencer". The test they will use as proof in court that it meets the statutory definition of an illegal device.

Since they can and do change their mind when desired it means if you made a homemade barrel extension, or a fake suppressor and they decided to prosecute you under the law it would in fact qualify as a silencer per their test. Because anything that adds length will reduce the report, even without any internal components.
Now if it actually does have any more complexity or it is unique in design you are really screwed in court.

However if you are a company manufacturing many components with pre-approval from the ATF then you are unlikely (but not assured, see Akins case) to have problems.
If as an individual you just decide to make something yourself to screw on a barrel they could at any time consider it a suppressor, and the "they are doing it without getting into trouble" argument is all you have to defend yourself. An argument that is far from legally sound.


So the real answer to you legal question in light of all of the above? Because the ATF currently says it is not for that specific company.
They could change their mind tomorrow and enforce it under statute, as I am sure it does reduce the report of a firearm by at least 1 decibel.
They could prosecute you and win if you made a similar device for yourself, especially if you touted its ability to reduce the noise coming from the gun.
Because when they took you to trial for manufacturing a "silencer" and showed it did indeed reduce the report, and then cited what a silencer is under the law, it would qualify.

One, silencers are legal: I know a couple of folks with papered silencers and the $200 tax stamp.

Two, silencers are considered legal hearing protection in several European countries who don't have laws written by clueless idiots who watch too many Hollywood movies to determine policy decisions.

One, silencers are legal, even if heavily regulated, so I don't see any point in wondering why a quiet long barrel is legal. The real question is why should a gun that doesn't harm your hearing be illegal?

The fact that .22 LR from a 25" barrel is quieter than from a 16" barrel does not make the 9" of barrel a "silencer" or "muffler" as the definition has been refined since 1934.

Shoot CB Longs in a .22 bolt action with a 25 inch barrel. Now that's quiet.

On the other hand, the ammunition that contains the gas within a piston type cartridge designed for silent operation is illegal.

It's just a barrel extension so does it really make the gun "quieter"? If the original manufacturer of the firearm made a barrel the same length, would this product be quieter or not? Probably not.

I suspect that's the question ATF asked itself.

Take an AR for example. If I have an AR with a 10" barrel and I swap out the upper for a 20" barrel, did I make it quieter? Probably so. Is that a "silencer"? If so, then any barrel length longer than that the rifle was sold with becomes a felony to possess without a tax stamp. I don't think ATF wants to open that can of worms. That would go straight to the Supreme Court and they would likely lose. It might even be the kind of case that could kill the NFA laws altogether.

the website reports that it is a ported tube that allows the gas to vent in a series of ports as the shot travels thru the tube. this increases the time over which the sound is expressed. sounds like a silencer to me, but i guess the lack of internal parts makes it difficult for ATF to rule it a silencer.

The Host Website said:

At 1.1 pounds, it doesn't add excess forward weight.

Click to expand...

Sweet, I found my new skeet choke!

People are missing the legal point.

No they will no go after someone for a longer barrel.

They can for anything else at will though under the current definition in law. Which is why there is confusion. The definition of silencer:

The terms “firearm silencer” and “firearm muffler” mean any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm, including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, and any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication.

Click to expand...

This could also include something they claim you made for that purpose even if you didn't, including things like a barrel extension, especially if it is unique in design.
People have even be convicted for putting a potato on a gun in an attempt to muffle it.
The sole definition is "intended to diminish the report". They have convicted people for attempting to use a potato!
So even things not intended to be a silencer can be one if they claim that was your intent. Consider the ATF showing a clueless jury pictures of your fake suppressor and a real regulated one it is made to look like. Who do you think they are going to believe?
You or the ATF claiming it is an illegal device that looks exactly like the illegal device they are showing them, and that it does in fact reduce the report of the firearm by x decibels as proven in the lab and demonstrated in a video?

That complexity does not even exist in the OP's cited item.
Is the device intended for silencing, muffling or diminishing the report of a firearm? Yes.
Clearly in this case it is advertised as such and even named for performing such a function. The sole purpose of the device is to reduce the report of a firearm.
It does not matter if it has baffles, does not have baffles, or anything else.

All other specifics are ATF views and definitions subject to change.


So the ATF said it is okay, for now, so it is. But if you think you can start using it to build some logic that says you can do similar things, it's simply untrue. The logic is the ATF said it is okay in this case specifically.

The more important question here is, why is the OP trying so hard to find justification for banning these? Everything, EVERYTHING, the ATF does that creates ANY type of restriction for ANY law abiding citizen to be able to legally own ANY type of firearm, or firearm accessory, is the very definition of "infringe". Find a dictionary. Infringe means to encroach or trespass. Each piece of red tape added to the process of owning any firearm or firearm accessory is an encroachment, and is infringement of the second amendment.
http://onsecondopinion.blogspot.com/2009/02/meaning-of-shall-not-be-infringed.html

If you're looking for reasons and excuses to reword, rename, and re-examine firearm accessories and give the ATF a reason to add another encroachment to the second amendment, you have no idea what freedom is and you don't deserve it. On the other hand, the rest of us that do understand and accept the responsibility of freedom, don't deserve to lose it to your unintelligent, scared, socialist, communist ways of dodging responsibility.

Carl Brown has it right: The real question is why should a gun that doesn't harm your hearing be illegal?

Without a doubt "silencers" should be legal and not regulated or "infringed".

They were a natural progression in firearm technology and we have actually seen similar technology mandated on other items.
Try driving a car without a silencer (commonly known as a muffler in the USA, but still a "silencer" in many other places like the UK) on it and see how long you go without a citation.
They were both invented by the same person for the same purpose.
To reduce dangerous and unnecessary noise.
Yet one is mandated by law, and one is forbidden (without complying with a registration and taxation system initially put into place specifically to ban. $200 was a lot of money at the time during the Great Depression.)

That still does not change the wording of the law.

So nobody really can answer the question - WHY doesn't atf consider these things silencers? What is the rationale? (Not somebody's guess - but the reason the ATF made the decision(s).) No-one knows?

Click to expand...

Glummer, go back and re-read post #2. If you want a specific answer, email the company that makes the product and ask them what the specific wording of the letter they recieved from the ATF was. We've given you plenty of answers, including the one that pretty much ends the discussion - the reason that it's a legal product, is because despite the way the law reads, the ATF themselves have determined that the product does NOT fit the criteria. Therefore, it really doesn't matter what their exact words on the matter were.

Satisfied? If not, go to the source and get the answer you want on your own.

here's part of the issue. The ATF hs a huge list of absolutely stupid and silly restrictions and regulations that they basically make themselves. (Stuff like a shoestring is a machinegun) areas where the laws are grey or just not specific.

For the most part the ATF gets away with this sillyness because not enough people make a big enough stink. However, ATF is aware that they need to be somewhat careful on how they tread in case they do something really silly.

Example: Anything over 50 caliber is potentially a Destructive Device unless the ATF deems that it has a sporting purpose. So the ownership of all 12 gauge and 20 gauge shotguns are all at the whim of the ATF. Of course, if the ATF would ever start declaring anything but the wildest scary looking niche shotguns as DDs, all hell would break loose and in the end there would probably be a law made tying the ATF's hands.

In the same way, it is a lot 'safer' for the ATF to pick on a company making AR-15s than one making custom bolt guns.

Anyways, ATF is really stretching the definition of Silencer just like they really stretch the definition of machinegun. If the ATF would go after something that was so banal as simply having a really long barrel, it has the potential of backfiring on them.

Another good example of this is a forward handgrip on a handgun turning it into an Any Other Weapon. The way the law is written, the front of the triggerguard of the Glock (and many others) due to it being curved to accomidate a finger means it is a forward grip....but if the ATF would attempt to declare all Glocks as AOWs there would of course be a sh**storm....so ATF doesn't touch it.

This isn't the first company to make barrel extenders that aren't considered as suppressors.