![]() ![]() ![]() If the arms makers call the device a "muzzle brake", especially if it is a functional brake, that hypothetical DA of yours is going to have a tough argument to make redefining it is a flash hider. ![]() The military and the arms makers call that device on the M-14 and M-16 a "flash hider". They removed the military-defined "flash hider" and installed a "muzzle brake". Has Springfield Armory been illegally selling "CA-compliant" rifles with muzzle brakes for the last 20 years? I think not. By themselves, the side plumes are not small. Think of the two plasma jets coming out of the cylinder gap of a 357 or 44 magnum revolver. This would tend to increase total luminosity. One from each port in addition to the plume that is directed forward. If nothing else, a brakes creates two or more plumes. View QuoteTotal luminosity and maybe even total irradiance would be the relevant characteristics, not "brightness", not color temperature, none of that. Forget about suppressors: any device intended to reduce noise is legally a no-go zone. Suppressors are nearly impossible to haver in California (dealers, manufacturers and law enforcement excepted). On the registered ARs, I use whatever I feel like (which happens to be a device that mostly redirects the noise forward, without affecting recoil, since I'm mostly interested in a pleasant shooting environment for myself and my friends on the line). On my personal guns, the non-registered featureless guns (which are not allowed to have any evil feature) have only thread protectors or just straight unthreaded barrels. What I'm saying is: even a device that's intended to and sold to primarily control the exhaust gases might reduce the visible flash enough for it to be legally problematic. Because nothing prevents a local DA from getting an expert witness to measure the brightness of the flash, and if the exhaust gases are dispersed enough to dissipate the muzzle rise or kick, then they are also likely to emit less light. That's probably true, but I would not rely on it. Now conversely, one would think that a device that is called a muzzle break is not a flash hider in the legal sense. We recommend could be 1 of 2, Early models would use a peel washer and late models would use a crush washer.View QuoteThe test the state DoJ seems to us is: If the device is sold or advertised as a flash hider, then it is definitely a flash hider. We prefer this muzzle device to the original on our personal build rifles due to the increased muzzle brake effectiveness, yet keeping with the short and highly efficient A2 design style. Like the standard A2 but has more effective recoil compensation and will pass the "pinky test" in banned states since the front end is closed off. Will also bring 14.5 inch barrels to 16 inches if pinned. If you are a fan of the A2 style, but want even more performance overall, this may be what you are looking for. We offer this M16A2 muzzle device in Three Different configurations: Closing off the bottom also reduces dust signature when firing from the prone position. Unlike the earlier M16A1 Birdcage flash suppressor, the A2 model only has open side slots on the top bottom slots are closed off to turn this muzzle device into a dual Flash Suppressor / Muzzle Compensator. It is still the current Colt/US Military flash hider used today. ![]() Correct for all builds after approximately 1984-1988 (depending on branch of service). ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |