I’m curious if anyone has bought the RR version of these and run them without the end brake attachment? I was wondering if it’s worth having the RR version for earpro shooting target sessions but then having the option to leave the end off for maximum suppression, say hunting with my kids?
TBAC Magnus RR use without brake?
- Thread starter Whitshot
- Start date
If you are contemplating that, I might steer you towards a regular Magnus. Kind of like the "K" cans, the RR cans are for fairly specific applications, that are mostly encapsulated in these categories: hunting rifles (esp. magnums), ELR cartridges (.375 SwissP and smaller) from big guns, and PRS/competition.
Are the RR brakes removable? I thought they were fixed in place due to TBACs interpretation of laws? Or am I misunderstanding that?
It's probably the biggest ELR cartridge you can fit in an AI AXSR. Sam shot it at the KRG ELR and came in 16th, and we had a couple other guys shooting it also on another gun. These were factory AXSR's with just a new barrel fitted, shooting factory RUAG FMJ.
You would only worry about debris buildup on the threading. Otherwise, it doesn't matter.
@Zak Smith any chance you have an endcap in the works for the RR line? Really torn between which one I’m going to go with but would love the modularity of being able to take the brake off and cap it for hunting/shorter can needs.
Thanks!
Thanks!
They already stated that their lawyer has told them not to offer this. TBAC has no plans, iirc, to offer any end cap options.
See the ATF's Open Letter to FFLs dated 20 NOV 2023. page 2, regarding separate endcaps. If there is new guidance that changes this, we would love to sell them separately.
Yeah I was reading it as for solvent traps and people trying to get around paying a tax stamp but seeing as we have multiple companies selling different end caps and brakes I don’t think putting a different one on a serialized suppressor would be a problem but I’m not an FFL. lol
My SiCo omega came with an anchor brake- wanted to try to quiet it down and put one of their end caps on it instead of the anchor brake- works great and a bunch quieter. They even market their bravo endcap to be compatible with the omega.
There was a discussion at length even prior to the RR line being released, according to TBAC. We can discuss it at length, I know I did personally with TBAC... but they do not seem to be open to budging on the issue. So, no end caps, no "adding" different brake designs (by them), etc.
The only thing we can all hope is an aftermarket manufacturer will create one. But I'm guessing that will void the warranty.
The only thing we can all hope is an aftermarket manufacturer will create one. But I'm guessing that will void the warranty.
The sentence that starts with "For example," on the second to last paragraph on page 2 spells it out very specifically. It also says the exact same thing in 18 USC. This is not "our" interpretation, as I said in the other thread, we also got consultation from one of the leading NFA law firms in the country before any of these products was announced publicly.
I know other people sell endcaps separately. It is beyond frustrating from our perspective, believe me. We want to be making great cans and giving great service 10, 20, 30+ years from now and we can't do that if we're shut down due to violations. Let's hope this administration can make some concrete progress deregulating suppressors.
As for the warranty-- it wouldn't, why would it? We don't "automatically" void warranties for using third party mounts. Just don't use a product that is poorly designed and causes damage or causes problems, that's on them/you.
I know other people sell endcaps separately. It is beyond frustrating from our perspective, believe me. We want to be making great cans and giving great service 10, 20, 30+ years from now and we can't do that if we're shut down due to violations. Let's hope this administration can make some concrete progress deregulating suppressors.
As for the warranty-- it wouldn't, why would it? We don't "automatically" void warranties for using third party mounts. Just don't use a product that is poorly designed and causes damage or causes problems, that's on them/you.
That's an interesting standard to go off of... Based off this paper's logic all detachable mounting systems(HUB or similar systems) are considered a silencer itself. While it's using an end cap as an example it says "a silencer part intended only for use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer". I think it's obvious this is targeted towards solvent trap kit parts otherwise the ATF would have targeted almost every suppressor manufacturer making and selling detachable suppressor mounts and endcaps.
Last edited:
We have discussed that. It would have made the suppressor heavier and more expensive. Generally we try to optimize for the design purpose of a particular suppressor and not add extra features that would compromise that. "Do it all" designs are generally middling when evaluated in any specific application.
One could imagine a "full RR kit" that was a K length base, a module, an RR brake minus the end (with the same interface on the front end), and an "RR endcap" . This would give "full flexibility" but it would be considerably heavier and would cost 30-40% more than a Magnus-S-RR to make. In reality, we all have multiple cans for purposes, and the RR's are designed to live on competition guns, lightweight hunting rifles, and heavy LR/ELR guns that shoot magnums, and be as close to optimum in that application as possible.
One could imagine a "full RR kit" that was a K length base, a module, an RR brake minus the end (with the same interface on the front end), and an "RR endcap" . This would give "full flexibility" but it would be considerably heavier and would cost 30-40% more than a Magnus-S-RR to make. In reality, we all have multiple cans for purposes, and the RR's are designed to live on competition guns, lightweight hunting rifles, and heavy LR/ELR guns that shoot magnums, and be as close to optimum in that application as possible.
Similar threads
