Go Back   SOCNET: The Special Operations Community Network > General Topics > Weapons

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old 13 January 2015, 09:52
Grandpafork Grandpafork is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Sunrise, FL
Posts: 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifebreath View Post
I bought a PWS CQB linear comp to put on it, but after shooting it with the PWS Triad muzzle device, I kept the Triad mounted. No big flames, no huge concussion and a slight muzzle rise compensation. Not quite sure how they achieved it, but it's an amazing difference from a friend's 7.5" flame thrower!
Post a picture of this please. I only have opportunity to log on at work and they block all "weapons and ammunition" sites here.
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 14 January 2015, 03:25
DCH's Avatar
DCH DCH is offline
Callsign: Turkey Bacon
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: SoCAL
Posts: 2,192
Anyone else have experience with a PWS Triad flash hider on a 5.56? Is its benefits similar to that of the Noveske KX line Krink type hider?
__________________
No matter.
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 14 January 2015, 12:02
tooslow tooslow is offline
Morte et une dame
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Smokey Joe's Cafe
Posts: 3,235
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCH View Post
Anyone else have experience with a PWS Triad flash hider on a 5.56? Is its benefits similar to that of the Noveske KX line Krink type hider?
Looks remarkably like the original GI flash arrester that we had, doesn't it?
__________________
'Living on the edge... of being banned from SOCNET'
Welcome to my family; do NOT make me kill you.
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 14 January 2015, 13:44
lifebreath lifebreath is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Illinois
Posts: 25
The Triad is a variation on a three-pronged flash hider that does what is advertised - reduce flash and provide some muzzle rise compensation.

Here are two pictures showing the device (not my pics). The first shows a top view, the second a front view showing correct timing. The device is designed to be timed so the PWS logo is at 12:00. The slot that is then at 1:00 (from the shooter's perspective) is cut longer (is cut closer to the muzzle) than the other two slots. This creates slight muzzle rise compensation with the vector of force down and slightly left (from shooter's perspective). It does not create any recoil reduction or the associated concussion of such compensators. The modified three-prong design is very effective at reducing or eliminating flash, even on my 7.5" upper.

It's a very simple and effective device, and it's lightweight. Since the PWS MK107 is piston driven, I can't compare it 100% directly to my friends' 7.5" DI uppers with Noveske-type linear comps (Hera Arms - Germany). But their uppers throw a 2-3' fireball and are definitely more concussive, despite the blast going forward. My upper with the Triad has essentially no flash, and I don't notice much more concussion than my KAC 14.5" with non-compensating Surefire flash hider. The first time I shot it, I was pleasantly shocked.




Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 14 January 2015, 13:48
SOTB's Avatar
SOTB SOTB is offline
Minus one, but more symmetrical....
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Clorox'ing the gene pool....
Posts: 33,024
I remember the 3-prong flash guards from WAAAAAAAAY back being very effective of reducing flash. The shooter obtained no recoil benefits, but the fireball effect was greatly reduced.

When considering 5.56, I admit to giggling somewhat when someone touts the importance of recoil-reduction in flash suppressors....
__________________
Losing faith in humanity, one assclown at a time....
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 14 January 2015, 13:55
jdogonroad's Avatar
jdogonroad jdogonroad is offline
Preparing to defend
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: SE US of A
Posts: 2,854
As a hungry Joe in the field, that flash suppressor worked great breaking the wire holding cases of C-rats together. As the unit armorer during that era, kinda pissed me off, due to all the loose suppressors on weapons come inspection time.
__________________
What is best in life:"To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women."
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 15 January 2015, 16:27
DCH's Avatar
DCH DCH is offline
Callsign: Turkey Bacon
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: SoCAL
Posts: 2,192
Thanks for the info. lifebreath..

Now I just have to make sure it's legal in California (I'm certain it is since I have a bullet button/10 rd. Mags on my 10.5" AR)
__________________
No matter.
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 16 January 2015, 23:21
mdavid's Avatar
mdavid mdavid is offline
Been There Done That
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: High Springs, FL
Posts: 663
Things aren't looking good in AR pistol land.
http://www.atf.gov/sites/default/fil...ing_braces.pdf

Guess I'll just need to get the wife a DDM18 SBR and pay for the stamp.
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 17 January 2015, 01:32
Local's Avatar
Local Local is offline
Newbie shooter
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: The Ether..
Posts: 1,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdavid View Post
Things aren't looking good in AR pistol land.
http://www.atf.gov/sites/default/fil...ing_braces.pdf

Guess I'll just need to get the wife a DDM18 SBR and pay for the stamp.
That letter is ridiculous and solves nothing. So anyone who puts it on their shoulder once has 'redesigned' it and now needs a form 1? Or Intends too? Are they going to have guys watching you at the range - "That guy at lane 4 just shouldered it! lock him up" or worse "look there's a picture of that guy on facebook without his velcro strap done, he must have been shouldering it!"

- Local
__________________
Whispering...
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 17 January 2015, 04:56
DCH's Avatar
DCH DCH is offline
Callsign: Turkey Bacon
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: SoCAL
Posts: 2,192
The letter is a contradiction of federal law, which basically
states a firearm may not be classified based on its use, or how the shooter chooses to employ the firearm, but rather may only be classified by its intended design and build.

Shouldering an arm brace no more makes an AR Pistol a Rifle, than shouldering a 1911 handgun and classifying it a rifle, it just does not magically tranform or redesigns a firearm simply by an act of positioning.

Furthermore, that letter is more opinion than a statute, or law.
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 17 January 2015, 11:18
B 2/75's Avatar
B 2/75 B 2/75 is offline
Been There Done That
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Black Mountains
Posts: 9,999
IMO that is one rather ballsy branch chief.
__________________

.
"To the last I grapple with thee; from hell's heart I stab at thee, for hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee"
Melville / Captain Ahab
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 17 January 2015, 11:20
bravodelta bravodelta is offline
Broke D***
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: West Coast
Posts: 901
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCH View Post
The letter is a contradiction of federal law, which basically
states a firearm may not be classified based on its use, or how the shooter chooses to employ the firearm, but rather may only be classified by its intended design and build.

Shouldering an arm brace no more makes an AR Pistol a Rifle, than shouldering a 1911 handgun and classifying it a rifle, it just does not magically tranform or redesigns a firearm simply by an act of positioning.

Furthermore, that letter is more opinion than a statute, or law.
This. This exact same issue was addressed by the ATF about a year ago. At that time, even THEY agreed that shouldering the arm brace didn't change the classification of the weapon.

Quote:
Dear Sgt. Bradley:

This is in response to your communication dated January 24, 2014, to the Bureau of Alcohol, tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Your e-mail was forwarded to the ATF Firearms technology Branch (FTB), Martinsburg, West Virginia, for reply. In your note, you ask about firing an AR-15 type pistol from the shoulder; specifically, if doing so would cause the pistol to be reclassified as a Short Barreled Rifle (SBR).

For the following reasons, we have determined that firing a pistol from the shoulder would not cause the pistol to be reclassified as an SBR:

FTB classifies weapons based on their physical design characteristics. While the usage/functionality of the weapon does influence the intended design, it is not the sole criteria for determining the classification of a weapon. Generally speaking, we do not classify weapons based on how an individual uses a weapon.

FTB has previously determined (see FTB #99146) that the firing of a weapon from a particular position, such as placing the receiver extention of an AR-15 type pistol on the user’s shoulder, does not change the classification of a weapon. Further, certain firearm accessories such as the SIG stability brace have not been classified by the FTB as shoulder stocks and, therefore, using the brace improperly does not constitute a design change. Using an accessory improperly would not change the classification of a weapon under Federal law. However, the FTB cannot recommend using a weapon (or weapon accessory) in a manner not intended by the manufacturer.

We thank you for your inquiry and trust the foregoing has been responsive.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...l-shoulder-ok/

Inconsistent little fuckers over there, I tell you.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Odin's Underling
This is SOCNET, not some fucking teeny bopper discussion board.

Last edited by bravodelta; 17 January 2015 at 11:29. Reason: Too early, can't English properly.
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 18 January 2015, 10:16
litepath's Avatar
litepath litepath is offline
Authorized Personnel
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Ga.
Posts: 2,112
Open Letter from the BATFE

This open letter from the BATFE. Shouldering the SIG Brace is a Federal No-no. They mention nothing about just shouldering the base-pistol.

Link to pdf: http://www.atf.gov/sites/default/fil...ing_braces.pdf

It's a quick read at 2 pages. An excerpt below:

The pistol stabilizing brace was neither “designed” nor approved to be used as a shoulder stock,and therefore
use as a shoulder stock constitutes a“redesign” of the device because a possessor has changed the very function of the
item. Any individual letters stating otherwise are contrary to the plain language of the NFA,
misapply Federal law, and are hereby revoked.
__________________
--- ..- -
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 18 January 2015, 13:47
DirtyDog0311's Avatar
DirtyDog0311 DirtyDog0311 is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South
Posts: 6,336
So what the fuck is it now? Illegal or legal?

I for one am so glad that I live in a free republic where laws are made by Congress and not on the whim of bureaucrats like some banana republic countries in South Ameri.......oh wait...
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 18 January 2015, 17:40
bravodelta bravodelta is offline
Broke D***
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: West Coast
Posts: 901
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirtyDog0311 View Post
So what the fuck is it now? Illegal or legal?

I for one am so glad that I live in a free republic where laws are made by Congress and not on the whim of bureaucrats like some banana republic countries in South Ameri.......oh wait...
AFAIK, legal to own and install on a pistol, but illegal once it's shouldered. With that said, I've seen a lot of people trying to dump their braces at a significant loss after the letter came out.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Odin's Underling
This is SOCNET, not some fucking teeny bopper discussion board.
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 18 January 2015, 23:06
B 2/75's Avatar
B 2/75 B 2/75 is offline
Been There Done That
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Black Mountains
Posts: 9,999
So the market will have long, foam covered buffer tunes.

Mine is short, bit I'm not sure it HAS to be.
__________________

.
"To the last I grapple with thee; from hell's heart I stab at thee, for hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee"
Melville / Captain Ahab
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 18 January 2015, 23:47
SOTB's Avatar
SOTB SOTB is offline
Minus one, but more symmetrical....
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Clorox'ing the gene pool....
Posts: 33,024
IF I were interested in building an AR pistol (and I don't think I am), I would cover the buffer tube in a thick rectangular padding (foam). I'm not sure it would violate the rules, but it would be easy to put on and take off....
__________________
Losing faith in humanity, one assclown at a time....
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 19 January 2015, 01:03
Princeps Belli Princeps Belli is offline
Martian for Pax Romana
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Home
Posts: 571
Quote:
The pistol stabilizing brace was neither “designed” nor approved to be used as a shoulder stock, and therefore use as a shoulder stock constitutes a “redesign” of the device because a possessor has changed the very function of the item.
Since the regs give definition to the state of a manufactured item, albeit with regard to its intent, I still think it would be difficult to prove that a person's use reconstituted it or, as the passage suggests, redesigned the item.

A user who shoulders the item doesn't change any of the manufacturing, nor does his or her use change the substantial nature of the manufactured item. The idea that use could constitute redesign would be some awesome verbal judo. Hopefully, I am not one of test cases. I will, however, continue to shoulder AR pistol, keep my fingers crossed, and some reserve funds for bail and legal representation.
__________________
I am a Martian in a love affair with Venus, but when her husband Haephestus, the Vulcan, comes calling, I think about my own marriage to Athena and the lovely little Sophie waiting in my home.
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 19 January 2015, 01:15
havok88 havok88 is offline
Been There Done That
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: US
Posts: 1,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by litepath View Post
This open letter from the BATFE. Shouldering the SIG Brace is a Federal No-no. They mention nothing about just shouldering the base-pistol.

Link to pdf: http://www.atf.gov/sites/default/fil...ing_braces.pdf

It's a quick read at 2 pages. An excerpt below:

The pistol stabilizing brace was neither “designed” nor approved to be used as a shoulder stock,and therefore
use as a shoulder stock constitutes a“redesign” of the device because a possessor has changed the very function of the
item. Any individual letters stating otherwise are contrary to the plain language of the NFA,
misapply Federal law, and are hereby revoked.
That letter is all kinds of fucked up.
To me it seems like that last sentence would also render this letter invalid. Several times in the article they mention redesigning the brace. Nobody is redesigning or modifying it. they are attaching it exactly as it was intended to be, it just happens to be touching their shoulder when they fire it, which can be done without the brace(on an ar). In the end, it still says pistol on the side because that is exactly what it is built as. Based on their wording in the letter, If I took an AR pistol outside and hit a tennis ball with it, it is now officially a tennis racket even though it shoots bullets. But if I use a screw driver to pry a nail out of a board, it is still a screw driver, so this should still be treated as a pistol. I would really be interested in seeing any law that states that how you use an item changes the classification of said item. Maybe Azatty or someone else in the profession could explain to me if I am completely wrong here.
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 19 January 2015, 12:23
litepath's Avatar
litepath litepath is offline
Authorized Personnel
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Ga.
Posts: 2,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princeps Belli View Post
Since the regs give definition to the state of a manufactured item, albeit with regard to its intent, I still think it would be difficult to prove that a person's use reconstituted it or, as the passage suggests, redesigned the item.

A user who shoulders the item doesn't change any of the manufacturing, nor does his or her use change the substantial nature of the manufactured item. The idea that use could constitute redesign would be some awesome verbal judo. Hopefully, I am not one of test cases. I will, however, continue to shoulder AR pistol, keep my fingers crossed, and some reserve funds for bail and legal representation.
On the bolded portion, I thought the same thing.

And those very words are a part of the law; "made or remade, designed or redesigned."
Further, on the pistol idea, the NFA reads that a pistol would have a short grip, and would be intended (designed?) to be shot with one hand. < paraphrasing.

If I owned such a pistol, I think I'd just do as I wanted on my own property. But I wouldn't go taking photos of proof of my disregard or display my disregard in front of others, such as at a public/private range. And for damn sure not on FB or a social media channel or in a magazine spread.
__________________
--- ..- -
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Our new posting rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:30.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Socnet.com All Rights Reserved
SOCNET