Agreed. I'm not reaching out. Just hopeful it passes. Demand would skyrocket.
Thunderbeast RR end cap adapter group buy - 338 ultra and magnus
- Thread starter Archimedes
- Start date
If they aren’t able to produce their own adapter or make a suppressor that has changeable end caps I feel like they should just release the predications of the thread pitch and tapers. It would make the whole thing a lot easier
It’s not like they’re releasing any genuinely proprietary information since any machinist can figure it out and it’s just a taper and threads. It would make it a whole lot easier for the end user to make an adapter on a product they aren’t wanting to produce so no revenue loss either.
It’s not like they’re releasing any genuinely proprietary information since any machinist can figure it out and it’s just a taper and threads. It would make it a whole lot easier for the end user to make an adapter on a product they aren’t wanting to produce so no revenue loss either.
No they can’t do that. It would be a legal nightmare for TBAC. It would be seen as complicity if the ATF goes after this product and they are the deep pocket player. Leave them out of this, their legal team has already made their position clear.
I do not have inside information from TBAC so this is my own speculation. I think the advice TBAC received is based partly on a letter ATF published on June 19, 2006, which said “[h]owever, any silencer components parts sold to unlicensed persons must be marked and serialized individually, as all such parts must be registered, identified, and transferred pursuant to NFA requirements.” On November 20, 2023 ATF doubled down on that old position in a discussion about solvent traps by mentioning end caps in the context of a “combination of parts” and “any part intended only for use” in assembling or fabricating a silencer. These quotes are from the letter, but also are in the definition of a silencer in 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(25).
Trade groups have asked for clarification that as far as I know has not been given. The PARTS Act was reintroduced this congressional session but so far has gone absolutely nowhere in either the House or Senate (not even a committee hearing). If the act passed it would specifically authorize sale of component parts like end caps by redefining a silencer as the outer tube/primary housing.
I get where TBAC is on this. I would probably protect my business this way, too, until the dust settles on the current regulatory wishy-washy overreach.
Well, this is an important wrinkle in my situation and maybe I should cancel my Magnus RR and my 338 GEN 2RR
I surely don’t want to be holding a $2000 piece of titanium that is outdated six months after I receive it because the big beautiful bill passed and removed silencers from the purview of NFA and now we can mix and match parts as we please
I surely don’t want to be holding a $2000 piece of titanium that is outdated six months after I receive it because the big beautiful bill passed and removed silencers from the purview of NFA and now we can mix and match parts as we please
IMHO, there are a lot of positives for having the TBAC RR cans in hand now.. IF suppressors are removed from the NFA, they will be even more demand for them, making them even harder to obtain. With the removable Brake, there is the potential for TBAC or other, third party replacement end caps in all kinds of configurations. Might even be a robust secondary market for them, especially the HUB RR cans. All speculation on my part,but a few positives to consider.
And in my case our communist state may just outlaw their sale or impose some huge tax on them
That’s a bit melodramatic, what, is the atf going to go after silencerco because they have the HUB threads published? Anyone can get this information with the right tools or paying a machinist a couple hundred bucks. Plenty of these thread pitches and tapers are freely published and are standardized. Publishing specs is under the realm of free speech like 3d printed gun files.
Last edited:
That’s is true! What was said is that TBAC should enable the creation of an object that their legal team said not to create. If you go out and find the data yourself, TBAC has not facilitated the action.
I still don't see a difference between SiCo publishing the HUB standard and TBAC publishing this thread standard, not that I ever think they would even if their legal team gave them the green light.
The only ones who know the engineering or legal technicalities associated with their designs is TBAC. I suspect there is a reason but I never need to know it. It could be that their lawyers are just more conservative. Again that is their business and they have made their position clear.
Similar threads
