what is a compensator?

[bikerburgess]

With the new Limited rules allowing us to try new things I thought of some things that I think fall into a grey area in our rules.

A frame mounted muzzle weight that sits just below the barrel and extends in front of the muzzle it will get some down force from the expanding gasses when the round leaves the barrel, does that make it a comp?

A angled cut at the front of the pistol (think IPSC modified gun but more extreme)it will also create down force is that a comp?

A muzzle weight that looks like a compensator with all the baffles milled out from the top (a "u" shaped block in front of the muzzle)is that a comp? how about if it is attached to the frame?

From the rule book "Compensator . . . . . . . . . . .A device fitted to the muzzle end of a barrel to counter muzzle rise (usually by externally diverting escaping gasses)."

I understand that the advantage's gained may be small but I can see us needing to define exactly what a compensator is.

what do you think

Mike

[Amerflyer48]

Interesting point

however I'm thinking a compensator would require baffles and or ports by definition

I do see how you would have a slight "comp effect" by having an angled cut,U channel or a protrusion below the barrel however I'm not so sure that the advantage is that great perhaps someone with a ransom rest could map it out someday

I am sure someone here has knowledge of fluid dynamics or gas flow and could give us all a headache with the math involved to prove or disprove the action reaction of these mods vs. a traditional port and baffle setup

There will always be folks who push the envelope for any perceived "edge"

Perhaps they need to redefine a compensator better though I would like to see the numbers on how much the above mentioned mods vs. even an old dual port compensator first might be something might be vapors..

interesting mental excersise though

John

[MarkCO]

The easy answer would be to prohibit anything that extends beyond the crown of the muzzle with the slide forward. Any surface beyond the crown could be used to reduce (or increase) muzzle rise using the expanding gases. But, past the locked up crown of the muzzle, the effect would be delayed and minimal.

The A1 cone comp, and the Noveske KX3 are just expanded diameter tubes at the end of the barrel. They do slightly reduce recoil and muzzle movement, but have no baffles or ports.

[Flexmoney]

The easy answer would be to prohibit anything that extends beyond the crown of the muzzle with the slide forward. Any surface beyond the crown could be used to reduce (or increase) muzzle rise using the expanding gases. But, past the locked up crown of the muzzle, the effect would be delayed and minimal.

That is a good point. It would also cover an issue brought to me by one of the Area 5 members... He was concerned about a sight rib that extended the front sight out beyond the muzzle.

[Matt Cheely]

Just looking at the "A device fitted to the muzzle end of a barrel" part of the rule would make me think I could get away with using a frame mounted comp on a limited gun. After all, it's not attached to the barrel in any way.

[MarkCO]

I agree Matt. That is why the "Easy" answer above covers so many things that are "probably" intended to be prohibited but which if the rule is not written correctly, will open a huge COW. I, for one, prefer a solid rule instead of awaiting "rulings" from DNROI.

[Matt Cheely]

I agree Matt. That is why the "Easy" answer above covers so many things that are "probably" intended to be prohibited but which if the rule is not written correctly, will open a huge COW. I, for one, prefer a solid rule instead of awaiting "rulings" from DNROI.

Same here.

If you just drop the "fitted to the barrel" part of the rule then there is no issue.

[Matt Cheely]

Someone should get this changed quick, I'm getting some ideas...

[Flexmoney]

Nor this, right?

[Matt Cheely]

Nor this, right?

That should be fine? I don't see a problem with having things stick past the end of the muzzle, as in a sight tracker rib or anything else.

[MarkCO]

Coming soon...

1. The Cheely "V" block extended dust cover.

2. The Cheely sighttracker rib with "cosmetic" lightening holes.

"We don't know "why", but adding option 1 and 2 to your limited gun makes it louder and flatter shooting."

[bikerburgess]

I like Markco's rule suggestion it's a nice clear rule so as a RO/RM you can look at a gun and be able to easily say legal or not instantly. I also like the idea of Limited be open to new ideas but making complicated rules that leave gray space invites inconsistent interpretation

Mike

[DarthMuffin]

Just looking at the "A device fitted to the muzzle end of a barrel" part of the rule would make me think I could get away with using a frame mounted comp on a limited gun. After all, it's not attached to the barrel in any way.

Yeah, google the USP Match for an example of that. It's not a great compensator, but it is one.

[Skydiver]

Would this be considered a comp if it's an integral part of the frame?

[bikerburgess]

Would this be considered a comp if it's an integral part of the frame?

as it stand's now I would say no (in 2013). But if the frame extended 2" more and was closed at the front we don't have a rule that would define the difference so when a shooter shows up with a Franken pistol what do I tell them? that's a compensator because I think it is or because there is a rule that says it is?

How about the guy with the suppressor on his gun is it a muzzle weight or a comp? it doesn't re-direct the gasses it just slows them down.

I personally don't think any of this will make enough difference in performance to make it worth while but there are shooters that think anything will help and may show up with a pistol they spent a bunch of money on and have a RO, RM, MD tell them that what they have puts them into open and the pissing match, I mean arbitration will begin.

Mike