https://wittmachine.net/produc...-equipment-slimline/

Seems the shroud hugs that brake pretty tight. Wouldn't that create three chambers and a very suppressor-like effect?

They're just waiting until enough people buy them that they can go in with a warrant for the sales records and then have a long list of doors to knock on. Gotta set the hook before you reel in the bait, it's just no fun otherwise.

Indeed.

It seems to me, if they can justify calling the CAR15 moderator a silencer, then this would get the same treatment.

Would it be a suppressor if it didn’t reduce the overall noise, but merely directed it forward?
Based on my (albeit limited) experience with shooting next to someone with a brake that directs much of the muzzle blast to the side, I can see how such a device would be much appreciated in certain situations.

You ask a good question about effectively turning the assembly into what looks like a suppressor with three chambers, but wouldn’t the answer depend upon its actual effect on the sound?

Then again, I could certainly see this situation:
Manufacturer: “We measured the sound signature in accordance with normal procedures and the shroud didn’t reduce the overall sound level.”
Some government agency: “Oh, we changed all that, and when our new required protocols are followed, the sound level is reduced, and therefore it’s a silencer.”

Semantics.
Witt defines a suppressor as a device for silencing, muffling or diminishing the report of a firearm.
Witt defines sound mitigation equipment as a Linear Comp/Blast Can that reduces lateral auditory reports.
"Sounds" like an ATF investigation waiting to happen.

quote:

Originally posted by SIGfourme:
Semantics.
Witt defines a suppressor as a device for silencing, muffling or diminishing the report of a firearm.
Witt defines sound mitigation equipment as a Linear Comp/Blast Can that reduces lateral auditory reports.
"Sounds" like an ATF investigation waiting to happen.

Witt is not the only one that makes "sound mitigators". They have apparently passed ATF scrutiny, at least for other manufacturers. Mostly what they do appears to be reduce recoil and move the sound forward. Some people shoot them on handguns and swear by them.

They do not count that as a suppressor / silencer because it is not one. It is the same as a Surefire Warden and any number of other blast deflectors. It does not reduce the sound; it just directs it forward. It is helpful if you are shooting on a crowded line because the guy shooting next to you does not get as much of the report directed at him as well as you the shooter not feeling as much. They do not mitigate the sound. Devices like this have been around for many years.

I disagree. I have a Warden. When the Warden, and similar devices, are attached to a brake, they do not envelope the outer perimeter close enough to create anything like individual enclosed chambers.

I maintain that this Witt device seems to create something similar to a Vietnam-era moderator, which are classified as silencers.

If anyone can provide another example of a similar product, that is not a common "blast can/deflector/director/diffusor", I'd be very curious to see it.

I think it's folly to attempt to attach logic or reason to arbitrary and capricious decisions by unelected beaureaucrats.

It makes no sense because it's non-sensiscal.

They don't have an incentive to ruin someone's life over it yet. That's why.

its the ATF - Does anything sound correct LOL

quote:

Originally posted by DoctorSolo:
I think it's folly to attempt to attach logic or reason to arbitrary and capricious decisions by unelected beaureaucrats.

It makes no sense because it's non-sensiscal.

They don't have an incentive to ruin someone's life over it yet. That's why.

I totally agree with this.

If you look at the Noveske Pig/KX3. It's literally a one baffle suppressor.

Patent Image Link
https://patentimages.storage.g...-20111101-D00000.png