Supressor caliber conversions?

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • bobthefisher

    Durka ninja
    Aug 18, 2010
    1,214
    Definitely not where you are!
    I’m currently in the process of transferring\obtaining a 45 ACP submachine gun, but do not currently have a 45 submachine gun suppressor. However, I do have a Bowers CAC-9 with their upgraded AIMS mounting system.

    So the question is, would it be possible to reclassify the caliber of your suppressor, albeit probably by notifying the ATF of the permanent change? It would definitely be a permanent change, considering you cannot keep extra baffles on hand, as it would be considered suppressor parts to an unregistered suppressor. From a technically aspect, it would be extremely easy to convert the CAC-9 to 45 caliber, as the two setups are essentially identical. All that would be required is the replacement of baffles and the end cap to the larger diameter.

    I guess this question goes more along the lines of any permanent caliber conversions of any NFA items. If it’s approved by the ATF, would that person have to change the caliber markings on the NFA item?

    We all know barrel and overall lengths can be changed temporarily without ATF notification. However, according to some, even permanent changes to barrel and overall lengths need not be reported to the ATF, it’s just “recommended” per say. Would this also apply to permanent caliber conversions?

    I understand the cost\hassle might warrant just getting a 45 submachine gun suppressor anyway, but I’m more curious of the legal aspect at this time.
     

    rsideout

    Senior Member
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 11, 2009
    6,743
    MD - Capital Region
    I would just get another Bowers CA in .45. I think that you can use the same mounts in both cans. I do that with my Coastal MIMS cans for 5 different hosts.
     

    SWO Daddy

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 18, 2011
    2,469
    I would assume that, as with SBRs, you can send a letter to the ATF notifying them of a permanent change in configuration.

    With that said - it's still a suppressor capable of shooting 9mm, right? IANAL, just my 2 cents.
     

    SWO Daddy

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 18, 2011
    2,469
    You have to file a form 1 and pay $200 since it is considered making/manufacturing.

    Ahh...does this go back to the dispute that Gemtech had with other manufacturers, resulting in them writing letters to the ATF?

    DSC00617.jpg
     

    Hansohn Brothers

    Active Member
    Jul 3, 2012
    146
    Little help. What the heck happened there? Why does that AAC can have Gemtech markings?


    Short version: Kevin Brittingham used to work for Gemtech, left and started AAC. He then bought a ton of Gemtech cans and used the baffles to make his cans (compare the original Outback and Pilot). Also rebuilt Gemtech cans as AAC cans (pictured above). Gemtech got wind and told ATF. Your basic pissing match with no winners.
     

    bobthefisher

    Durka ninja
    Aug 18, 2010
    1,214
    Definitely not where you are!
    Wow that's pretty crazy on the above picture. Did Kevin Brittingham actually take Gemtech tubes and essentially cut out the serial number, and then wrap his AAC suppressor around it? If so, that's a pretty ballsy move. Did the ATF eventually rule that was creating a new suppressor and therefore tax needed to be paid? Thanks for the history lesson fellas.
     

    HT4

    Dum spiro spero.
    Jan 24, 2012
    2,728
    Bethesda
    Wow that's pretty crazy on the above picture. Did Kevin Brittingham actually take Gemtech tubes and essentially cut out the serial number, and then wrap his AAC suppressor around it? If so, that's a pretty ballsy move. Did the ATF eventually rule that was creating a new suppressor and therefore tax needed to be paid? Thanks for the history lesson fellas.

    Presumably, AAC was a SOT at that time... so no tax per can.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    275,368
    Messages
    7,278,998
    Members
    33,442
    Latest member
    PotomacRiver

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom