Who owns a SCAR 17?

[Ragnar]

Is the muzzle device that comes on the gun a flash hider or a muzzle break?

If a flash hider, would this gun be MD compliant if a dealer substituted the flash hider with a compensator or muzzle break?

 

[Mr.B]

Pretty sure it doesn't come with a flash hider, least on the scar 17. So it would most likely be fine

 

[mtel]

It comes stock with a device that's really both a comp and a brake, which also has some minimal FH capability.

If swapped out for a true brake or comp, yes it'd then pass the copycat test.

 

[Vile Shadow]

Problem is, any device that hides flash, even if it's not advertised to do so, is technically considered a "flash hider".

 

[mtel]

Yep.

 

[TheDevilHimself]

Problem is, any device that hides flash, even if it's not advertised to do so, is technically considered a "flash hider".

That is true.

Here is MD's definition:
(G) “FLASH SUPPRESSOR” MEANS A DEVICE THAT FUNCTIONS, OR IS
13 INTENDED TO FUNCTION, TO PERCEPTIBLY REDUCE OR REDIRECT MUZZLE
14 FLASH FROM THE SHOOTER’S FIELD OF VISION.

Having fired the SCAR 17 at dusk with the factory brake installed and removed, I can honestly say that the brake does not minimize the flash or redirect it from my field of vision- if anything, the report and flash were more perceptible with the brake installed, at least from the shooter's POV. I'm pretty certain that I don't have an abnormally large field of vision...

 

[Flipz]

Problem is, any device that hides flash, even if it's not advertised to do so, is technically considered a "flash hider".

What's worse is that PWS, who manufactures the brake on the SCAR17, advertises it as having "flash suppression with muzzle control." right on their website.

 

[ObsceneJesster]

Just make sure you get a break or a comp that adds more flash than a bare muzzle. They do exist.

Although, in my personal opinion, I think you will be okay with anything not advertised as a flash suppressor.

 

[erwos]

What's worse is that PWS, who manufactures the brake on the SCAR17, advertises it as having "flash suppression with muzzle control." right on their website.

This is the real problem - they advertised it as a "Flash Suppressing Compensator" (hence, FSC556). *sigh*

 

[TheDevilHimself]

This is the real problem - they advertised it as a "Flash Suppressing Compensator" (hence, FSC556). *sigh*

I hadn't noticed that. FN advertises it as a compensator.
There is an easy solution though- remove muzzle device, add thread protector, sell gun.

 

[Flipz]

This is the real problem - they advertised it as a "Flash Suppressing Compensator" (hence, FSC556). *sigh*

Exactly!

 

[Wayne1one]

There is an easy solution though- remove muzzle device, add thread protector, sell gun.

When all is gray and fuzzy, this is the best answer!

 

[reidpath]

Is the muzzle device that comes on the gun a flash hider or a muzzle break?

If a flash hider, would this gun be MD compliant if a dealer substituted the flash hider with a compensator or muzzle break?

Here is the ATF determination letter saying it is not a flash hider.

http://www.hkparts.net/shop/pc/images/FSC556_web.pdf

 

[NateIU10]

Here is the ATF determination letter saying it is not a flash hider.

http://www.hkparts.net/shop/pc/images/FSC556_web.pdf

Boom.

 

[mtel]

Here is the ATF determination letter saying it is not a flash hider.

http://www.hkparts.net/shop/pc/images/FSC556_web.pdf

It seems to ultimately depend on what the final interpretive definition of “or is intended to function” will be.

If “intended” is seen by MD as quantifiable then yes, that seems to be a nod towards ATF. If MD decides “intended” is more subjective (i.e. - advertised as, etc) then I suppose it’d be a FH, absent a lawsuit or negotiation.

 

[Slowhand]

I hadn't noticed that. FN advertises it as a compensator.
There is an easy solution though- remove muzzle device, add thread protector, sell gun.

I believe this makes it a "flame thrower" albeit short range.

 

[reidpath]

It seems to ultimately depend on what the final interpretive definition of “or is intended to function” will be.

I can't see much intent to have this device function as a "Flash Suppressor" seeing how they specifically sent them to FTB for an evaluation to confirm they "do not suppress flash, flame...of any kind".

That is despite the fact FTB says that is what it is for in the second paragraph.

 

[mtel]

What you’re saying is entirely reasonable but law isn’t really interpreted by commonsense.

I’m not claiming what it should really be. Just pointing out the ambiguity lies in “intended”.

If ultimately MD decides that advertising it as one (which PWS still does, almost 7 years after that letter) meets the criteria of a FH, then ATF’s evaluation is secondary.

 

[reidpath]

If ultimately MD decides that advertising it as one (which PWS still does, almost 7 years after that letter) meets the criteria of a FH...

Not going to be holding my breath waiting for that to happen.

 

[mtel]

No need to hold your breath. MD FFLs don't seem to sell it with the factory comp, so it’s already the de facto interpretation (unless challenged at some point).