Any news/info on the Sig MPX-C?

[Chains12]

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!

 

[smalls]

my first suppressed subgun chambered in 9mm

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.

 

[Chains12]

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.

 

[Armor Snail]

That's post 86 BTW. FOPA

Not 68, GCA

 

[Speedo66]

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.

 

[smalls]

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.

That's post 86 BTW. FOPA

Not 68, GCA

that's what happens when I THR as I'm falling asleep

 

[Frank Ettin]

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.

 

[barnbwt]

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

 

[Chains12]

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.

 

[Darkbob]

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.

 

[Ryanxia]

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.

 

[barnbwt]

...or an unnaturally long barrel, for that matter

 

[Vodoun da Vinci]

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

 

[Darkbob]

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.