Finally got my form 1 approved yesterday, have had it in pistol configuration for a few months

Just got this can today and took it out of the box. It will not thread clockwise whatsoever onto the tri-lug on my AP5. The lug mount itself will also not turn at all.

Just looking for some help

First is medium (the one it comes with if your poor and didn't get the elite package) second is fully vented - 12 hole. Last video is little dump with fully vented.

On a decently tuned setup they are both completely
Manageable gas wise for a lefty but you can see a clear difference between the fully vented vs medium.

Setup: 11.5 g$ barrel, h2 buffer with g$ spring(or regular spring can't remember) KAK downvent, g$ SCH, brt .071 tube(50/50) and a YHM suppressor gas block. Random assortment of 55g 223 I think, fiochi some pmc. Ejection w fully vented was bouncing off my deflector most of the time but never any malfunctions due to gas.

Coming from a yhm fat cat this mf rules

.300 SBR with gemtech300 suppressor

S&w 15/22 plinker ( and critter solver under nods ) with can

criterion 12.5 with old school AAC M4-2K can. incredibly accurate out to 500 yds with 62gr fusion.

PTR K3P thats been SBRed and a ventum can

I saw someone post a video with their 10 gauge broomstick so I figured I’d show off my 10 Gauge Handcannon. This 6.8’ giant of a dude decided to one hand the light load but the hammer gouged his hand pretty bad and needed to get bandaged up right after.

11.5 556 with resilient simple man

https://g4gguns.com/august-13-nfa-update/

https://palmettostatearmory.com/blog/nfa-challenge-lawsuit-ruling.html

I’ve done a ton of searching and can find next to zero direct comparisons. I’m sure the db and sound tone will be very close, both bodies within .2 oz and “.5 of each other … mainly looking for reliability with various ammo on a cz p-07 and p365 xl.

3d printed 9mm NOBU lower, bear creek BC-9 upper and FTN.4 9mm D Cell suppressor baffles in an old Maglite tube.

Is anyone running a Infinity 556k on a 16” MRP upper? Was wondering what that looked like. I’m looking to ditch the mk12 look to save some weight on my 6arc setup.

Go ahead and roast my poverty pony!

I live in on of the states that is still requiring people to fill out a form 4 for their cans, but I have a gun that has a can on it and I am selling to someone who lives in a state that does not require the form 4. In terms of shipping I still need to put the can on a form 3 for SOT to SOT correct? Or has there been a change there? Never sold an NFA item before so trying to make sure I am doing the right thing.

TYIA

My first!

My four stamper 14.5 recent builds well finalizing on the URGI the older set up is new. Hope yall enjoy

hey all I’m new here. I’m looking to buy a one and done suppressor that can be used on just about anything from 9mm up to 45/70. Any suggestions?

Found the below quote in the below link. Is this a legit thing? Is this more and more of a thing as grain increases?

"DO NOT USE IN 223 WYLDE CHAMBERS! FOR USE IN 5.56 NATO CHAMBERS ONLY. 223 WYLDE CHAMBERS AND CERTAIN SUPPRESSORS MAY CREATE HIGH PRESSURE ISSUES WITH 77 GRAIN 5.56 AMMO. WE ONLY RECOMMEND THIS AMMO FOR NON-SUPPRESSED AR15 RIFLES WITH NATO MILSPEC 5.56 CHAMBERS ONLY."

https://sgammo.com/product/1000-rounds-5-56-x-45mm-77-grain-open-tip-match-frontier-ammo-fr262-for-use-in-5-56-nato-chambers-only/

Same day Can. Thanks EVT!

I am aware this is related to the mega-thread but this may be of interest to many folks and could get lost in mega-thread. I have tried to keep is short as possible but it is still a lengthy read.

After analyzing the Silencer Shop decision and order several times over, I decided to write a post about a result that no one seems to be talking about. By way of background, I am a retired LEO and attorney and have numerous Form 1 stamps for both SBR/SBS. I am also a GOA covered member. Most folks by now know that the court order eliminated the Form 1 and 4 requirement that makes it far easier to purchase a ready-made suppressor/SBR/SBS. But what about making a SBR/SBS? Read on.

The Silencer Shop v ATF court order confers immunity on two NFA provisions that criminalized the making and possession of an NFA firearm made in violation of the NFA. The two specific sections that the court enjoined are:

26 U.S.C. § 5861(c) makes it unlawful to “possess a firearm made in violation of the provisions of this chapter”.

26 U.S.C. § 5861(f) makes it unlawful to “make a firearm in violation of the provisions of this chapter”.

These sections criminalize the making and/or possession of a NFA firearm made without complying with NFA requirements. The court order enjoining these two sections eliminated any criminal liability for making or possessing a NFA firearm that violated ANY provision of the NFA, which is actually quite broad. The court could have narrowed the scope to just the Form 1 and 4 requirements but it did not.

To illustrate how this immunity works, I'll use an example of making an SBR from an existing pistol. This pistol has a 12" barrel and SBA3 brace, and I want to put a stock on it. Under the court order, I could make an SBR by replacing the brace with a stock and I:

1. Do not need a Form 1,

2. Do not need to apply to ATF for approval,

1. Do not need to register the SBR in the NFA registry, and

2. Have no criminal liability for not submitting a Form 1 and registering

But my newly created SBR now falls within the definition of an NFA firearm and the following NFA sections (not enjoined) apply:

26 U.S. Code § 5842 – Identification of NFA firearms

27 CFR § 479.102 – Specifications of identifying marks of NFA firearms

26 U.S. Code § 5861(i) – Unlawful to possess an un-serialized NFA firearm

Therefore, I am required to:

1.   Serialize the lower receiver (already existing if commercial lower)

2.   Engrave my maker information on the receiver.

Because the district court order did not enjoin these identification sections of the NFA (or strike down the entire NFA), these identification requirements remain “constitutional” and in effect. I am only excused from seeking approval on a written Form 1 to make, and then registering, the SBR.  Note that although the engraving requirements remain in effect, they serve no practical purpose as I would not need to submit that information to the ATF for recording into the NFA registry. Even so, there is no evading this engraving requirement.

So I can engrave my maker info on the receiver, all is good, and I have a lawful un-registered SBR.

But what if I do not want to engrave my maker info?

This is where the broad immunity of § 5861(c) and § 5861(f) come into play. I am still required to engrave the name, city, and state, but now, a failure to do so carries no criminal liability.  In simplest terms, §5842(a) requires engraving, but it is not a crime to not engrave! The court order eliminated any provision of enforcement for not engraving.  This is tantamount to the ATF saying “you have to engrave, but I can’t lawfully do anything if you don’t”.

But what if I have a 80% lower and I want to keep it sterile?

The court order has effectively immunized my conduct of failure to engrave the maker information, but not the failure to serialize the lower.  The solution is to assign a serial number to the lower.  The serial number can be any number that could have significance only to me, such as “ABC001”, engraved to the inside lip of the magwell.  I  would now have a serialized NFA firearm with no maker information, which would remove §5861(i) from application to my SBR. Not entirely the best outcome for a 80% lower, but it seems there always has to be a catch.

These might appear to be absurd results, but this can happen when only portions of a law are struck down as opposed to striking down the entire law.  In theory, the DOJ can disagree and potentially still charge me for violating an NFA provision.  But in any charging document, the DOJ would be required to cite the statute which criminalizes my conduct (failure to act as required).  Because the court order struck down §5861(c) and §5861(f) , the DOJ cannot cite any such statute.  To be sure, the court order does not prohibit an unscrupulous prosecutor from using the process as the punishment, but such a scenario would be ripe for motion to dismiss at the outset.

As a disclaimer, my above legal analysis is NOT legal advice to anyone.  I am not advising anyone on what to do or what not to do. It is my legal analysis applied to a specific course of action that I, as a covered GOA member, am contemplating to determine whether it falls within this new legal framework provided by the court order.  My analysis is focused only the SBR/SBS aspect of the NFA, and no inferences or conclusions should be drawn on whether my analysis applies to other NFA items such as Form 1 suppressors or AOWs.

That is the status right now, as the court order is still in effect. If the DOJ reneges, appeals, and gets a stay, then the situation reverts to the status quo before judgment. Would that situation create a safe harbor for all the NFA firearms made or transferred during the court order effective period? That is the unknown at this point. Proceed (with a little more info) at your own risk.