Thread: Is the A2 muzzle device a flash hider or muzzle brake?

Originally Posted by 300CALMAN

AHHH the price! Having slots facing sideways and upward is't really conducive to saving your night vision but I guess it will reduce muzzle flip. Not really a flash hider then is it?

If I remember rightly the Steyr AUG had a flash hider designed to vent gas away to the sides avoiding lighting up the sights. They seemed to work OK but then 21 inch barrels produce a bit less than 14.5 inch barrels.

Yes, how the hell can GC justify $149 is beyond me.
NZRAC has them for $40 and On-Target for $50.

Originally Posted by 300CALMAN

AHHH the price! Having slots facing sideways and upward is't really conducive to saving your night vision but I guess it will reduce muzzle flip. Not really a flash hider then is it?

If I remember rightly the Steyr AUG had a flash hider designed to vent gas away to the sides avoiding lighting up the sights. They seemed to work OK but then 21 inch barrels produce a bit less than 14.5 inch barrels.

You have a good point there indeed. I'm really feeling there's more evidence for A2's being a recoil compensator than anything else. The A2 doesn't eliminate flash signature fully. Does reduce some flash but so do many other compensators. Youtube illustrates this quite well. Official U.S. Army manuals also seem to hold this view. Sellers are selling these as brakes/compensators. This has been an interesting discussion.

But safer to call it a flash hider until someone defines what a flash hider is.

Originally Posted by dogmatix

Yes, how the hell can GC justify $149 is beyond me.
NZRAC has them for $40 and On-Target for $50.

Now there IS the real crime here!!! GC you should be ashamed of yourselves...

Bet it's made in China at the "Ranger" factory.

If you really want one of these and are worried about what the police think well you can always take the GC add with you...

Even the DPMS and Brownells own branded ones are US $8 and $6.50 respectively.

Originally Posted by Mauser308

Begs the interesting question, if one was to machine up one with the similar appearance to the A2 but with different physical specifications to the requirements of the Mil Spec (which governs what is an "A2" spec compensator) - would that have the same legal implications if fitted to an A-cat rifle? Who would know...

I know that a lot of the other mil flash hiders do dual duty on modified military rifles, and example being the FN MAG barrel and flash hider fitted to the FN30-11 bolt action sniper on the Mauser action.

Interesting question indeed. What I've ultimately concluded is that we wouldn't know until legal precedent is set. This is why I reckon it's best to assume it to be a flash hider until the courts confirm or disprove this.
My first course of action is to always examine the Act itself - which provides me with no definitions on what a 'flash suppressor' is. That could be anything, without a legal definition.

An example of a similar issue would be the pistol grip fiasco, where it was ruled by the courts that a non-military pattern free standing grip was legal, but this was quickly overruled by Police, and they updated the legal definition in the Act. This is what I understand.

I believe something similar would probably inevitably happen with regards to this question?

Thanks everyone for your input, just shows how silly some laws are, but it is what it is.

Careful guys, next thing we might witness "policy" changes to all of this.

Originally Posted by Apocalypticaman

An example of a similar issue would be the pistol grip fiasco, where it was ruled by the courts that a non-military pattern free standing grip was legal, but this was quickly overruled by Police, and they updated the legal definition in the Act. This is what I understand.

The Police cannot 'overrule" the courts, nor do they update the legislation.

The Police lobbied (see whinged) to Parliament following the Lincoln V Police court ruling, which then led to the passing of the Arms (Military Style Semi-automatic Firearms and Import Controls) Amendment Act 2012, which added 74A to the Arms Act 1983. This empowered the Governor General to make Orders in Council in relations to pistol grips (and some other sneaky things), which he then did.

As there is a clear case that an A2 muzzle device IS described as a 'compensator' by both the US Military, manufacturers and sellers, I wouldn't be overly concerned about having one on an 'A Cat' rifle.

Going by some of your positions on this, you could not put a suppressor on an 'A Cat' rifle either. As a Police officer could say that a suppressor, also suppresses the muzzle flash.

The NZ Police can't even understand the definition of length at the moment, so....

Originally Posted by Koshogi

The Police cannot 'overrule" the courts, nor do they update the legislation.

The Police lobbied (see whinged) to Parliament following the Lincoln V Police court ruling, which then led to the passing of the Arms (Military Style Semi-automatic Firearms and Import Controls) Amendment Act 2012, which added 74A to the Arms Act 1983. This empowered the Governor General to make Orders in Council in relations to pistol grips (and some other sneaky things), which he then did.

As there is a clear case that an A2 muzzle device IS a described as a 'compensator' by both the US Military, manufacturers and sellers, I wouldn't not be overly concerned about having one on an 'A Cat' rifle.

Going by some of your positions on this, you could not put a suppressor on an 'A Cat' rifle either. As a Police officer could say that a suppressor, also suppresses the muzzle flash.

The NZ Police can't even understand the definition of length at the moment, so....

I stand corrected, you are indeed 100% correct on the fact that police are there to simply administer, not make interpretations or update law.
There's enough evidence as this thread has discovered to support the argument that it is a compensator. This is true.

Originally Posted by grunzter

First statement, generally yes, second statement Wrong!
It may not be the best muzzle brake by any means, but it would also be an average flash hider.

I'm just going with what I was told by the arms officer when looking for a correct muzzle brake for my Tigr. The correct brake was defined as a flash hider therefore illegal for A category firearms.

Originally Posted by peril 787b

I'm just going with what I was told by the arms officer when looking for a correct muzzle brake for my Tigr. The correct brake was defined as a flash hider therefore illegal for A category firearms.

Defined by who?

Originally Posted by Koshogi

Defined by who?

+1 I'm interested in this too.

Originally Posted by Koshogi

Defined by who?

By whoever the arms officer was that I spoke to (can't recall the name). I was already aware that it's a flash hider, but was thinking about sneaking one in and playing dumb if I was caught with it. Decided that wasn't a good idea.

Originally Posted by peril 787b

By whoever the arms officer was that I spoke to (can't recall the name). I was already aware that it's a flash hider, but was thinking about sneaking one in and playing dumb if I was caught with it. Decided that wasn't a good idea.

Interesting. Because there isn't a definition in the Act for anyone to concretely make that call. Police can make interpretations, but without a clear definition, this will need to be challenged/debated in court, and case law could guide the administration of the law from there onward. For example, in states in the US where "flash suppressors" are illegal (i.e. MA, CA, NY), state law defines what a flash suppressor is and isn't, and case law has set the legal precedent. However, in these states there have been an enormous number of lawsuits and legal challenges to these definitions, as they are simply nonsensical. If you browse muzzle devices that a few well known sellers in NZ are selling, "compensators" with flash mitigating qualities, that are not exclusively "flash suppressors" are being sold everywhere, and appear "legal" in the eyes of the Police. This applies to suppressors as well. It appears that currently all muzzle devices are technically legal until proven otherwise in case law, or until a definition is spelled out under the Act. To me the law simply isn't clear/specific enough. Someone here may disagree with this opinion. Not providing legal advice, just an opinion.

It appears this isn't problematic at the moment, and hope it never becomes so. Any muzzle device, flash hider or not, doesn't make any firearm more or less dangerous, and as other have said attempting to classify firearms based on technical features is a nightmare. I was under the impression before starting this thread that there was a clear definition and precedent, but this isn't the case.

Getting down to the real issue... let's get rid of the stupid E classification, as NZ First are proposing. It's common sense stuff.

Getting rid of E category is dangerous, as it would lead to me spending far too much money on new toys.