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.
______________________________________________ “There are plenty of good reasons for fighting, but no good reason ever to hate without reservation, to imagine that God Almighty Himself hates with you, too.”
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.”
► 6.4/93.6
Posts: 47949 | Location: 10,150 Feet Above Sea Level in Colorado | Registered: April 04, 2002
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.
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.
Posts: 2551 | Location: Northeast GA | Registered: February 15, 2021
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.
Out of curiosity, I looked up the legal definition of a silencer. It's vague as all get out.
quote:
For the purposes of the National Firearms Act the term Silencer is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(24)
The term “Firearm Silencer” or “Firearm Muffler” means any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm, including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for the use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication.
I'm guessing that with the small internal volume, and the cutouts on the edge of the muzzle brake gas impact surfaces, this thing would still be very loud. The shroud would probably reduce the perceived blast along the firing line.
I suspect it sounds about like an A2 flash hider, while perhaps reducing recoil like other good brakes.
Posts: 14186 | Location: Indiana | Registered: December 04, 2003
There may be further down the line case law, or, more likely, ATF determination letters, that are being relied on for them to not run afoul of NFA regulations about what the ATF actually considers a silencer. I suspect that in particular is why there are notches cut into the brake baffles to allow gas to escape. If the outer shroud fit tightly to the entirety of the brake, it would function as a pretty inefficient but lightweight silencer of sorts.
Those muzzle brake flat impact surfaces aren't shaped anything like an effective blast baffle, and the internal volume is very low. In short, that would be a terrible design for sound mitigation.
Posts: 14186 | Location: Indiana | Registered: December 04, 2003
Silencer baffles are specifically shaped to delay gas from escaping for as long as possible. Lots of shapes designed for disrupting and redirecting the flow of gas.
The CAR15 moderator does have some aspects of this:
Compare this to the Witt machine brake:
Posts: 14186 | Location: Indiana | Registered: December 04, 2003
My wild ass guess is that Witt Machine probably sent a drawing or a sample to the ATF and got a determination letter that this design is not classified as a silencer under the NFA.
Posts: 14186 | Location: Indiana | Registered: December 04, 2003
Originally posted by IndianaBoy: My wild ass guess is that Witt Machine probably sent a drawing or a sample to the ATF and got a determination letter that this design is not classified as a silencer under the NFA.
