Permanently attached suppressors ?

[snayperskaya]

The long flash hider fitted to the Dragunov reduces to muzzle flash to next to nothing, both from the perspective of the firer or the target, even in low light conditions and is very effective.

[TattooedGun]

You would think so, but they are quite effective at reducing the seen flash from the firers perspective, but then so are some brakes. The most effective device is a sound moderator. Which takes us back to what was meant in the Act when it was first drafted and not the modern interpretation which we are stuck with.

I don't want this to come across pointed, because it certainly isn't and I'm just interested. Do you think that they were trying to cover their backs by people making "flash" chambers and calling them as such to avoid being legislated against, which may have also had sound moderation properties?

Seems odd that they'd try to stop a back-door like that, whilst leaving air-rifle moderators in the same thread as section 1 firearms completely untouched.

[breacher]

You would think so, but they are quite effective at reducing the seen flash from the firers perspective, but then so are some brakes. The most effective device is a sound moderator. Which takes us back to what was meant in the Act when it was first drafted and not the modern interpretation which we are stuck with.

I don't want this to come across pointed, because it certainly isn't and I'm just interested. Do you think that they were trying to cover their backs by people making "flash" chambers and calling them as such to avoid being legislated against, which may have also had sound moderation properties?

Seems odd that they'd try to stop a back-door like that, whilst leaving air-rifle moderators in the same thread as section 1 firearms completely untouched.

My opinion - they were specified as both were seen as military in application.

[AR15]

So reading that it seems they are controlled, but no indications given on what does or doesn't constitute a 'flash hider'. To my mind I can only think of two such devices and that would be on the AK 74SU and Colt XM177, both of which are more like combustion chambers to reduce the flash because of the shortened barrels on those guns from the shooters perspective.





'Bird cage' muzzle devices, to my mind anyway, INCREASE the visible flash, both to the shooter and target, as rather than a slim cone of fire they are massive widened into a star/cross etc of fire??

What constitutes one is down to the intended design. If the intended design was a muzzle brake but by accident there was 'some' flash elimination then the device is still a muzzle brake because it was not 'designed'
or 'intended' to reduce flash from the outset.

If it was designed as a flash hider but is rubbish at eliminating flash due to poor design its still a flash hider, just a crap one.

[AR15]

I can confirm that it is definitely NOT just meant for supressors and that Flash hiders are indeed licensable accessories, as per moderators.

http://blog.stegough.com/flash-hiders-a ... in-the-uk/

Exactly how a device is determined as a flash hider or muzzle break is contentious, personally if it's mentioned in the patent/design brief/spec that it is a device to help minimize the flash of a firearm, then it would be under that category. But that's my opinion and not that of the home office.

However it is the view of the Home office that the wording was put into the legislation to license flash hiders and not just a catch all for suppressors. See the link for more information, including the response from the Home Office on the matter.

Thats absolutely correct, if its design was intended to hide flash its a flash hider. And yes all the S&W's have birdcage muzzle devices but they could have been designed and manufactured in the USA as a compensator.
The original A1 Birdcage was designed by Colt as a Flash Suppressor, the revised A2 (the one we use) was designed as a compensator.

[Rarms]

Similar to A-max being designed for accuracy and not for expansion then

[AR15]

Similar to A-max being designed for accuracy and not for expansion then

Theoretically a work around. It can expand depending on what it hits and how. But wasn't designed to do so. Probably shouldn't use the term work around, accident would be better.

[AR15]

Just came across this enlightening document from the BASC in relation to questions from earlier in this thread, regarding component parts that are not currently listed in legislation. Apparently this has been identified in the Policing and Crime Act 2017.

Bottom of the first page.

https://basc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/ ... ng-Web.pdf

Component parts defined
The component part of a firearm which is subject to licencing is defined for the first time as follows;

“barrel, chamber or cylinder, a frame, body or receiver, a breech block, bolt or other mechanism for containing the pressure of discharge at the rear of a chamber – but only where the item is capable of being used as a part of a lethal barrelled weapon or a prohibited weapon.”

2 This amendment removes any doubt as to the status of other parts by defining finished major components. This does not apply to the components of a shotgun, just a Section 1 firearm.
This results in no change for the shooting community as it enshrines current practice based on the Firearms Consultative Committee recommendations contained in its 9th annual report

Exactly why a manufactured barrel under 12'' is a Sec5aba component all day long and the conversion of such to Sec1 is illegal, as is the manufacture of the part in the first place without Sec5 authority. The sub 12'' barrel component is capable of being used in a Sec5aba prohibited weapon and nothing else legally.
Look at point 2 ''This amendment removes any doubt as to the status of other parts by defining finished major components''. I hope for some on here it might be starting to sink in.

[breacher]

Just came across this enlightening document from the BASC in relation to questions from earlier in this thread, regarding component parts that are not currently listed in legislation. Apparently this has been identified in the Policing and Crime Act 2017.

Bottom of the first page.

https://basc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/ ... ng-Web.pdf

Component parts defined
The component part of a firearm which is subject to licencing is defined for the first time as follows;

“barrel, chamber or cylinder, a frame, body or receiver, a breech block, bolt or other mechanism for containing the pressure of discharge at the rear of a chamber – but only where the item is capable of being used as a part of a lethal barrelled weapon or a prohibited weapon.”


2 This amendment removes any doubt as to the status of other parts by defining finished major components. This does not apply to the components of a shotgun, just a Section 1 firearm.
This results in no change for the shooting community as it enshrines current practice based on the Firearms Consultative Committee recommendations contained in its 9th annual report

Good to see clarification on the definitions of component parts.

Now, if they would only clarify whether a component part is subject to the same length restrictions as an assembled firearm.

Unfortunately that has never been tested in court so a definition / case law does not exist.

At the moment it is purely interpretation ( which differs from Rfd to Rfd and Sec 5 to Sec 5 and even the Home Office )



Now - I find the inclusion of thew word FINISHED as very interesting. It has been put there for a reason I am sure.

So, one interpretation would be that if a component is being manufactured and its manufacture has not been finished, it is not yet a component.

Take that one step forward - an individual wants to cut a section 1 barrel from 12" to 8" with the intention of manufacturing a new component, namely a 13" long barrel including permanently fitted muzzle device...................

So, the component he is intending to manufacture is 13" long. It could be said that when at 8" the job is NOT FINISHED yet.

See ? How just one little word like "finished" is open to interpretation.

[AR15]

Just came across this enlightening document from the BASC in relation to questions from earlier in this thread, regarding component parts that are not currently listed in legislation. Apparently this has been identified in the Policing and Crime Act 2017.

Bottom of the first page.

https://basc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/ ... ng-Web.pdf

Component parts defined
The component part of a firearm which is subject to licencing is defined for the first time as follows;

“barrel, chamber or cylinder, a frame, body or receiver, a breech block, bolt or other mechanism for containing the pressure of discharge at the rear of a chamber – but only where the item is capable of being used as a part of a lethal barrelled weapon or a prohibited weapon.”

2 This amendment removes any doubt as to the status of other parts by defining finished major components. This does not apply to the components of a shotgun, just a Section 1 firearm.
This results in no change for the shooting community as it enshrines current practice based on the Firearms Consultative Committee recommendations contained in its 9th annual report

Good to see clarification on the definitions of component parts.

Now, if they would only clarify whether a component part is subject to the same length restrictions as an assembled firearm.

Unfortunately that has never been tested in court so a definition / case law does not exist.

At the moment it is purely interpretation ( which differs from Rfd to Rfd and Sec 5 to Sec 5 and even the Home Office )

LOL

''where the item is capable of being used as a part of a lethal barrelled weapon or a PROHIBITED WEAPON''. 8'' barrel is capable of being used on a Sec5aba firearm, MOST IMPORTATNTLY it IS one of the required components for that firearm to meet that classification, therefore Sec5 component. 8'' barrel cannot be legally used on any other class of firearm other than Sec5aba. You cannot convert Sec5 to Sec1.

''This amendment removes any doubt as to the status of other parts by defining finished major components''. Well some folk are still struggling.