So Sig comes out with this SBR in 9mm but puts a 7" muzzle brake to eliminate muzzle rise/flip.
First the concept is ridiculous for a 9mm SBR. Now it would be more justifiable if it was a .300 BO, 45 acp, 5.56. But the primary purpose for an SBR is for CQB that gives you much more firepower than a pistol. So the 7" brake defeats the purpose of having a small/short barrel for compactness sakes in that scenario.
However, is Sig really going to put something like this on the market with that intent? A gun that has a short barrel but you lose the advantage of having that short barrel by making it the same foot print as a carbine. Plus why do you need a brake on a 9mm?
Personally I think this is a test to see if they can get the courts to knockdown the ATF in their regs and judgements of new products. THey are irrational and fail to provide any substance or proof to go with their claim. To say this weapon has a suppressor when it is a completely open brake that doesn't reduce sound signature at all plus Sig shows test data to thwart that argument.
A second thought on this, is this a possible setup that could easily convert into an integral suppressor? Have a series of baffles labeled as a brake legally and then the end user can make a shroud to cover and capture the sound and suppress it to a degree.
What are your thoughts?
Comment