Tavor and Spikes Tactical Muzzle Brake, Legal?

[HappyFellow 0]

First post, so bear with the potential for errors in how its posted.

 

Just got FID. Have scoped out what ive wanted for a long time. Decided on a Tavor. Love the bullpup design and the Tavor takes it.

 

As far as ive read and heard and seen, there are a million + laws and 'rule of thumb' things to rifles and NJ.

 

 

I know the tavor will need a muzzle brake pinned and welded. It comes stock with the A2 i believe. I DONT want flash suppression. I want to abide by the regulations and rules that govern this right.

 

Ive searched and searched and read and came across many various opinions and thoughts. I understand we can have no flash suppression, in the name, in the description, etc.

 

 

Now here comes the topic.

 

There is a 5.56 Krinkov brake from Spikes Tactical. It is marketed as a krinkov and described by them as a krinkov. It is designed like a traditional krinov being it is designed to throw "noise, blast, and concussion forward away from the shooter down range". As ive read is common with compensators and traditional brakes, they blow out to the side and annoy the person in the port or lane next to you with your blowback.

 

It says NOTHING, about flash suppression except for an extra end cap you can get from them to change out the flat end cap.

 

 

So now there is this 'pinky/thumb' rule ive heard of. If you can fit your pinky in its not a brake supposedly. But every Krinkov ive ever seen has a larger bore. You could fit your thumb in a tiny bit (depending on your hand size obviously). But they are still a brake and are still a krinkov.

 

 

 

So, Is the Spikes Tactical Barking Spider2 with the flat endcap acceptable in NJ standards if pinned and welded to the tavor. I will include a link to the Barking Spider2 5.56.

 

There are videos on youtube of people using it. You can clearly see the huge flash out the front, it just doesnt come out the sides like a comp.

 

 

Second question, would the end cap have to be welded to disallow other caps to be put on? (Trouble with that is it would seal the ability to clean the krink segment).

 

 

 

To assist more, looking down into the Barking Spider2 there is a hole, smaller than my pinky, obviously for the round to travel through. It is just down 3/4 of the way, right before the Krink section which then leads to the sealed endcap.

 

I know the flash cap is on in their stock photo, but the flat end cap is also pictured and that is obviously the one that would have to be used.

 

 

http://www.spikestactical.com/muzzle-device-barking-spider2-krink-break-556-p-1156.html

 

Video:

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vwyw0XjophI

 

He talks about it as a flash sup, but he is not a company rep. So i take his wording as just yammering.

[Krdshrk 3,877]

Are you looking at that brake more for looks or more for actual compensation?

 

The Spikes Dynacomp is a good option...  

[HappyFellow 0]

The reviews on it were very good, liked the overall physics of it (using a traditional style comp blowback in a krink to push the concussion and such forward instead of out to the sides), and spikes brakes in general.

 

I had read reports of spikes dynacomp in 5.56 that werent letting the round out and the round would hit the endcap of the dynacomp.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmuFgWbki-E

 

As far as needing a comp, the tavor doesnt need a comp or brake as it has next to no recoil. But because of NJ law, a brake needs to be on it and pinned an welded. And id rather put what i feel is the best one on the tavor

[carl_g 568]

I have a dynacomp on my AR and have never had any issues with the bullet striking the endcap.

[checko 180]

I have a dynacomp on my AR and have never had any issues with the bullet striking the endcap.

Same. No issues here

[vladtepes 1,060]

So now there is this 'pinky/thumb' rule ive heard of. If you can fit your pinky in its not a brake supposedly. But every Krinkov ive ever seen has a larger bore. You could fit your thumb in a tiny bit (depending on your hand size obviously). But they are still a brake and are still a krinkov.

 

 

 

this is nonsense and not written anywhere... but yet continues to be spewed across forums and gun shops state wide...

 

whos pinky? yours? a 700lb midget? a toddlers? it makes no sense at all...

 

 

 

the law is vaguely simple... no flash hiders.. NJ does not define flash hider.. which leaves the ball in your courts..  when I used to need to follow these laws I always just went the cautious route.. if it looked like a flash hider.. if it was marketed as a flash hider.. if it was known to mitigate flash.. I just stayed away from it..

[raz-0 1,259]

During the fed ban, some krink type comps got blessed, some did not. For nj, I'd say this is a no go simply because of the threaded cap. The original krink uses a retaining clip iirc. Krink style comps need to be cleaned, so pinning the cap isn't worthwhile IMO.

[HappyFellow 0]

Thanks all for the thoughts.

 

I agree that i think it may be acceptable, but i do believe it would require welding a few points on the threaded cap. Because as im understanding the law, you are pin/welding the brake in the first place to make it an integrated part of the barrel. So if the brake is then considered part of the barrel, and the end of the brake is threaded (even as fat of a bore the thread is) may constitute a 'threaded barrel' evil feature.

 

As far as the dynacomp being struck with a round, they have made the dynacomp d2 so maybe they increased the bore size. The author of that video also said it could have been because they were using 50 grain. No idea. If i couldnt do the Barking Spider id do the Dynacomp D2.