3

California muzzle brake reddit post (4 mos. old) - Sad

posted by [Deleted] on guns

[–][deleted] 3 points 4 months ago

It does not have a caliber specific exit hole. I would not put that device on my featureless rifle.

Edit: I said what I would not do and why. I do not recommend any muzzle devices. I use them. But I don't recommend them. If you want to avoid being the low hanging fruit for CALDOJ then the following applies.

These things are irrelevant:

Threads, pinning, welding, or any other method of attachment of the device.
The absence of a claim that a device suppresses flash.
Claims that a device is legal by anyone, possibly even your lawyer.

These things are relevant:

The actual effect on muzzle flash. Specifically that the device does not "perceptibly reduce or redirect muzzle flash from the shooter's field of vision." CCR 11 § 5469 (b)
A manufacturers assertion that a device is not a flash hider if it's true.
A ruling by a judge.
If you do not understand this completely then use a thread protector.

Tips from ChuckDizzle on CalGuns

Use the saying, "if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck."
If it shares physical characteristics of a flash hider such as slots, prongs, or a bullet hole that is conspicuously larger than the bore diameter, it's a flash hider.
If it visibly reduces or directs muzzle flash away from the shooter's field of vision, it's a flash hider.
If it is advertised or marketed to reduce or redirect muzzle flash, it's a flash hider.

Any ONE of the above will make a muzzle device a flash hider.

**[–][deleted] 3 points 4 months ago** It does not have a caliber specific exit hole. I would not put that device on my featureless rifle. Edit: I said what I would not do and why. I do not recommend any muzzle devices. I use them. But I don't recommend them. If you want to avoid being the low hanging fruit for CALDOJ then the following applies. These things are irrelevant: - Threads, pinning, welding, or any other method of attachment of the device. - The absence of a claim that a device suppresses flash. - Claims that a device is legal by anyone, possibly even your lawyer. These things are relevant: - The actual effect on muzzle flash. Specifically that the device does not "perceptibly reduce or redirect muzzle flash from the shooter's field of vision." CCR 11 § 5469 (b) - A manufacturers assertion that a device is not a flash hider if it's true. - A ruling by a judge. - If you do not understand this completely then use a thread protector. Tips from ChuckDizzle on CalGuns - Use the saying, "if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck." - If it shares physical characteristics of a flash hider such as slots, prongs, or a bullet hole that is conspicuously larger than the bore diameter, it's a flash hider. - If it visibly reduces or directs muzzle flash away from the shooter's field of vision, it's a flash hider. - If it is advertised or marketed to reduce or redirect muzzle flash, it's a flash hider. Any ONE of the above will make a muzzle device a flash hider.

5 comments

[–] [Deleted] 1 points (+1|-0)

I thought I remembered a bizarre "policy" from a few years ago where it was understood that you buy an AR-style rifle, send it out to a gunsmith, and it's returned as CA legal. The gunsmith welded the flash suppressor as opposed to the owner being able to unscrew it.

Am I mistaken?

[–] Owlchemy 1 points (+1|-0)

Not sure. I gave up trying to figure out their gun laws written by folks that have no clue what a gun even is, or what components do what. Like their no bayonets rule - LOL. I guess it's a serious problem since so many Californians are killed by bayonets every year. /s

But seriously, most of their regs are ridiculous and have no bearing on safety or as they now like to say, common sense gun laws - LOL. I lived in CA before they went nuts (but am not a native, I'm an East Coaster by birth), so I'm just happy as a pig in shit that I moved along.

[–] [Deleted] 1 points (+1|-0)

No one's judging.