SIG’s Dispute with the BATFE Over MPX Muzzle Brake Continues is reporting that the Sig Sauer and the ATF have not yet come to a resolution on their previously reported dispute over the civlian-oriented MPX pistol-caliber carbine muzzle brake. As we reported in July, Sig contends that the brake is just a brake, where the ATF asserts that it is a “silencer” (just without a shroud to muffle the report of the firearm.

It would seem that the ATF has reevaluated the brake and still concludes that it is a suppressor. Per court documents, Sig has until September 19th to respond to the the ATF’s conclusions.

My take? Sig will take the ATF to court. The principal concern is that there are no hard and fast rules for what counts as a “silencer” under federal law. The suit would be designed to force the ATF to create rules that Sig and other companies can design and manufacture towards.

Under the system today, companies have to submit designs to the ATF for determination letters. By creating rules, companies would be able to freely design and release products according to the rules (or threat of lawsuit if they bend or break them.)

Nathan S

One of TFB’s resident Jarheads, Nathan now works within the firearms industry. A consecutive Marine rifle and pistol expert, he enjoys local 3-gun, NFA, gunsmithing, MSR’s, & high-speed gear. Nathan has traveled to over 30 countries working with US DoD & foreign MoDs.

The above post is my opinion and does not reflect the views of any company or organization.


  • USMC03Vet


    ATF doesn’t need to follow laws. Neither does the IRS, NAS, or the Department of Injustice. Frankly the only people following laws in the United States these days are suckers.

    You know the verdict of this years from now will be interesting if not completely irrelevant. Thanks for fighting the battle through, SIG.

    • KestrelBike

      I was going to say, the ATF’s behavior in this whole debacle is simply to try and limit the law-abiding for zero reason other than “because we can”. Absolute monstrosity of bureaucracy.

    • echelon

      Spot on.

      It’s like my favorite passage from the book Atlas Shrugged:

      “Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?” said Dr.
      Ferris. “We *want* them broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a
      bunch of boy scouts you’re up against– then you’ll know that this is not the
      age for beautiful gestures. We’re after power and we mean it. You fellows
      were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you’d better get wise to it.
      There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is
      the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough
      criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it
      becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation
      of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the
      kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively
      interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in
      on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Rearden, that’s the game, and once you
      understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.”

      • nadnerbus

        The guiltless man

  • jeff

    the problem is that companies keep coming out with designs to circumnavigate the laws. example sb15 arm brace (stock) sig mpx (suppressor) bump-fire stock (full auto) and the list goes on and on. i am all for this stuff as a gun lover and 2nd amendment supporter however you can only push so far before the atf pushes back and frankly i don’t want to loose my rights to own certain things. as wrong as it is , its the reality the atf will do what they want and unless their is an uproar and civil arrest , they will always get away with it.

    • John

      The bump fire stock is not fully automatic. One round is being expelled per pull of the trigger. Get your facts straight.

      • John Daniels

        And the SB15 isn’t a stock, and the MPX isn’t a suppressor. Do you even reading comprehension, bro?

        He wasn’t saying that the bump-fire stock is full auto, merely that it’s a work-around to get as close as the law will allow. Just like the other things mentioned. Context matters.

        • John

          It’s not a work-around. It is 100% in compliance with the law and is not in a gray area. Maybe you should work on your reading comprehension.

          • John Daniels

            I’m not completely sure you understand what “work-around” means…

    • I think you mean civil /unrest/, and the uproar and civil unrest is happening – Bundy Ranch, protests at state capitals, Tea Parties. Americans are getting fed up with being nannied.

      The problem is that governments keep coming up with new and interesting ways to work-around Constitutional restrictions.

      “[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

      Being a libertarian means not feel guilty about bending or breaking unjust laws. Nor do I fault anyone else for doing the same. I view Sig, Bumpski, and Slide-Fire as freedom fighters, not criminals.

      If the rules say that you can’t cross the foul line, but you touch the line without crossing it, then you’re actually still in compliance anyway.

    • shaw08

      So your legitametely blaming innovation? Almost every law is obviously stupid but rules and regulations aimed at impeding innovation and production are completely asinine. Even in maximum security prison, the absolute authoritarian paradise, inmates still manage to do all sorts of illegal things, some actually even manage to make guns inside of prisons, don’t believe give it a quick google. So the idea that these laws were ever gonna help was stupid, the idea that they need to be followed is clinical Stockholm syndrome, and blaming the “citizens” for doing what they are told they are free to do but comes a little to close to what the masters say shouldn’t be done is to declare yourself a slave. So many times you hear “it couldn’t happen here”, it already did, we have overt fascism, yea their not rounding up certain people and taking to the gas chambers yet but we’ve been dancing on that fine line for a very long time.

    • kingghidorah

      You are assuming the ATF somehow takes things personally. If the ATF needs a new law passed or an exe order, they will get it. Regan, Bush Sr.,Clinton, Obama have all done that for them.

    • A guy named Joe

      What about the WORK AROUND from the government? Do you know what WORK AROUND by the government means? It means compromise. 1994 AWB, you can own this just fine but without that. 1968 GCA, you can buy this but it must go through this. 1986 MGB or what they call the GOPA, you can still own MG’s but they must be before 1986. 1934 NFA act, you can own MG’s and what not, but you have to pay a tax. It is amazing to me on how much the government gets away with when they bring up the word COMPROMISE. You are saying, you are scared of losing your rights, the better question, why aren’t we outraged already with what we lost?

  • gunslinger

    i thought one of the big takes on classification is the “intended use” clause. i.e. in the arm brace, the intended use has always been to be strapped to the arm to assist in aiming.

    however there was at least 1 video of a sig rep (posted here back from shot show?) indicating that this is intended to be a silencer, if the user just attached a shroud, to the pre-threaded device?

    this is the fact i’m looking at. if there are others that discount this, then please let me know.

    • gunslinger


      about 2:30 into the video they talk about it. here it seems he’s very keen to say the device is a muzzle break. but then the shroud is the actual silencer? so i don’t get how the break isn’t a silencer until it is.

      • The tube/shroud is the silencer.

        An engine block isn’t a car. An AR-15 upper isn’t a firearm. A bullet with a tungsten core isn’t an armor-piercing cartridge. A unloaded handgun locked in a case in your trunk, separate from ammo isn’t a concealed firearm. Why would a functional muzzle break that makes the report louder be a silencer?

    • dan citizen

      If you build an exact copy of a regulated part, it doesn’t really matter what you declare it, BATFE FTB is still probably going to regulate it.

    • Mickey R

      While the Sig muzzle brake *can* be used as a suppressor by adding a registered tube, that’s only one possible use for it. The thing also functions as a muzzle brake, and Sig has the testing data to show that it reduces recoil and muzzle rise, and actually increases the report of the shot. In other words, the thing is not solely intended for making a silencer.

  • MANG

    Sure, you may not like the ATF, but is anybody here really comfortable with suppressor cores being sold to the public as a regular firearm accessory? Because I don’t think I’m OK with random individuals being able to buy one of these from Brownell’s with no screening. The question is really whether you’re OK with the public being able to buy a suppressor as freely as one can buy a muzzle brake – because all you need to do is cover this with a *tube*, and you can accomplish that at a hardware store without SIG’s help.

    If someone wants to built a suppressor illegally I’d rather they had to work a little harder.

    The wrist brace is great, good job trolling the ATF and so on, but this is dumb and I hope they lose in court because it’d be an awful precedent. Get the ATF on something else.

    • echelon

      Yes most of us are ok with people buying suppressors as easily as buying a brake. Why wouldn’t we be?

      Your logic and reasoning sounds just like the anti’s: Oh no the rifle is black and scary and has a shoulder thing that goes up! And it can hold 30rds of ammo! Can you believe that people can walk in off the street and buy a scary “assault rifle” like that?

      You should also realize that back in the day anyone could in fact walk into a hardware store and buy a suppressor for next to nothing and walk out with it. There weren’t bloody assassinations going on every day then and there wouldn’t be now. And besides if someone really wants to make a suppressor and they don’t care about the supposed “illegality” of it anyone can very easily if they have evil intent.

      If the NFA would go away suppressor technology would increase quicker and I would guess that most all guns would come standard with an integral suppressor because mot of us humans cherish our hearing. And I would also imaging that prices would also go way down because they’d be so common. So all around it would be pretty much awesomeness.

      TL;DR: Yes we’re completely fine with it.

      • MANG

        The past doesn’t matter and Europe doesn’t matter. If you think this country is the same place it was when Hiram Maxim would sell you a can from a catalog, then that might be a good reference. Hearing preservation is great, suppressors are cool – I’m OK with with drawing an arbitrary line at what civilians can freely obtain without jumping through hoops. Full auto, suppressors and DD’s. If you’re a real enthusiast and you want those things badly enough, you’ll deal with the hassle. I do not trust the general public with those things TBQH.

        • claymore

          And there in is YOUR problem ” I do not trust the general public with those things TBQH.” And the question is why not?

          • MANG

            Claymore, I think of idiots like that guy who shot his drunk teenage neighbor to death on his doorstep, or the guy in Minnesota who murdered a 17 year old girl with his Kimber for asking him to stay out of her yard. As an armed society we accept that there will be outliers – people with awful judgement or outright murderers. I don’t want those people to be able to buy suppressors from Cabela’s at will – the convenience to “responsible” people like myself is not worth it, in my judgement. Don’t see that I need to break that down or justify it any further.

          • nik

            So do suppressors add more lethality?
            I’m just trying to understand this point of view.

            I’m not scared of dampening the damaging sound of firearms, because my experience with suppressors isn’t limited to the silver screen, YMMV.

          • MANG

            They’re a force multiplier, nik. They add stealth.

          • nik

            I’ll repeat it, in case you missed it:
            “my experience with suppressors isn’t limited to the silver screen, YMMV”

            Suppressors are not at all what you’ve heard or seen on TV and television.

            Most hearing damage is caused at 85db. Suppressed, you’re looking at between 120-125db for 9mm and around 140db for .45 – Meaning most suppressors aren’t 100% safe to use without using ear protection as well.

            I’ll let you shoot mine and you can tell me how stealthy they sound.

          • MANG

            So far, the best counter-argument I’m seeing is “well, they’re actually not that quiet!”

            Folks, I don’t even trust the average person to operate an *automobile* safely and with good judgement every time – maybe that will help y’all understand my reservations here.

          • MANG

            p.s. I appreciate the offer

          • AJ187

            Well, since you’re basing your opinion on your feelings I wouldn’t expect someone to come up with a counter argument to appease your fear of the freedom of others.

          • That Guy

            Just shut the hell up.

            You’re wrong, and you’re merely digging a deeper hole at this point. People were willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, at first, but now you’ve proven that you’re a stupid statist tool.

          • lucusloc

            MANG, your reservations are not relevant to a moral and just law. What you are suggesting is punishing the innocent to control the guilty. Nothing more and nothing less, and it is tyranny.

            You may be wiling to suffer a little tyranny to satisfy your preconceptions on what “safety” is, but I am not. Every single one of your arguments can be boiled down to “because I am scared of it.” I want suppressors, unfortunately they are a bit out of my “just get it” price range, and they have to be balanced against other needs and wants. However I have all the tools to make one for a price that is well withing the “just get it” range, but the law prevents me from doing so. How is a de facto ban just when applied to my situation? Why is it that your paranoia get to dictate my actions?

            “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” You seem to forget this simple fact.

          • cnnspy

            Since you fear everything, MANG, the best thing for you is to just run away. Run from all your fears and mistrust.

          • They do not. They reduce the muzzle report, but guess what? A suppressed firearm on its own still sounds like a fucking firearm. It’s still loud. It’s just harder to guess FROM A DISTANCE where the shot came FROM.

            Suppressed =/= Noise cut out completely. This is not hollywood. Even a truly “silenced” handgun such as a .45 ACP 1911 with a huge can pushing subsonic 230 grains still sounds like a firearm.

            They do not add “stealth”. If I wanted to kill someone in stealth, I could think of plenty of methods to do that without a gun. And people already do that just fine.

          • MANG

            Never mentioned assassins and am not confused about what suppressors do to the report of supersonic or subsonic rounds… “Straw man” fallacy is what you call that. I guess we could change the subject to how easy it might be for you to murder people in the woods, but I’d rather not. 😉

          • MANG

            Sorry, getting a bit into trolling myself there.

          • Tpike

            Yeah I’ve shot a suppressed weapon quite a bit and guess what without ear pro some of them will still leave your ears ringing, by some I mean most, and by most I mean everyone I have ever fired, which was a MK12, a 1911, and a Glock 19

          • whskee

            You’ve probably never dealt with actual suppressed gunfire then, I’d imagine. Yes, noise is reduced, but anyone with half a brain is still going to hear a pretty decent noise and go, “WTF was that?”. Especially when someone fires multiple times. Seriously, even .22lr still makes enough noise to attract attention.

          • claymore

            AH the man that has never fired a suppressed firearm speaks. FYI they are not quiet like on TV and the round striking ANYTHING say maybe a human body still makes a loud report.

            Nice try NEXT.

          • M

            In the same way a car muffler adds stealth.. That is to say you can still hear it clearly, its just less obnoxious

          • valorius

            Oh ffs…

          • Mickey R

            So by your logic, MANG, we should also regulate bows and crossbows because they make it easier to kill people quietly…

          • dan

            What? Yeah and bulk. I can see it now gang members all over doing drive bys with suppressors sticking out the window. Hold up let me pull my pistol out with this long ass tube attached to it. Same stupid rhetoric spewed when the assault weapons ban expired. Adds stealth? Dumbest damn thing I have ever heard.

          • AK™

            Knives and baseball bats and syringes full of chemicals..and rags with rohypnol added to them,do the same thing.

          • Anonymous

            Yeah cause let’s say between goat fu%er #6 and #7 I’m gonna have problems maintaining my camp because of muzzle noise and flash.

          • Aaah, the good old stupid man’s argument, that “silencers are assassination devices”.

            A responsible person “like yourself” does not murder people, period. Just drop it, MANG, you have nothing to break down or justify, you’re just plain and flat out wrong. Silencers have no place being restricted or banned. End of story.

          • claymore

            And those incidents have what to do with suppressor ownership?

          • James O Donnell

            Your examples have precisely fuck-all to do with suppressors, over the counter or otherwise.

            Go take a look in the mirror. That’s what a mindless sheep looks like.

          • nadnerbus

            wait, so you are OK that the psycho could buy his Kimber that he murdered his girl with, but it would be just too much if he did it quietly? You realize how flawed your argument is. The firearm is the much more powerful device, the can is just an accessory. I think you might be a bit of an anti-gunner and not quite realize it.

          • Krakass

            No need to lie while making your point. The girl was shot 3 times, not murdered.

          • nadnerbus

            Personally, I think a better question is who cares whether he trusts the general public with them? It is not up to him to decide the limits of a Constitutional right. Certainly entitled to his opinion, just not to making it law.

        • jamezb


        • Jay

          Don’t trust the general public?? I have one word for you, Waco!!

          Please, next time you try forming an argument, have actual facts and not conjecture based on irrational fears and watching too many movies. Real world experience couldn’t hurt either…

        • valorius

          I dont trust YOU.

          • MANG

            Last one for the day: ¯_(ツ)_/¯

        • echelon

          So, wait. It’s perfectly OK, in your opinion, to arbitrarily set some lines on things because you think it’s scary for the “general public” to have and own? It’s perfectly OK to just gut peoples’ natural rights because they aren’t “real enthusiasts” or have large enough wallets or the time/energy to jump through those hoops?

          But at the same time you’re OK with “governments” having access to these same things and having the power to control others’ access to these same things with lethal force? It’s not OK for the guy down the street to own, let’s say an atomic bomb, but it’s OK that Uncle Sam owns them? When, in fact, our government is the only entity in history to ever use such a weapon on other people? I would contend that without governments such a horrific weapon would’ve never been realized by man.

          With all due respect, your philosophy is the reason we are in the mess we are in. We’ve entrusted too much of our responsibilities to “government” and to others and we’ve lost the ability to objectively govern ourselves. What do you care if someone should own a machine gun unless they are shooting you with it? What should it matter to you if a person owns a suppressor? If a person commits themselves to murder you are they any less culpable or evil if they choose to use a knife, double barrel shotgun or unsuppressed pistol?

          The line not to cross that is not arbitrary is the line where someone abuses your rights. And come to think of it the “general public” isn’t the first entity that I would come up with for whom generally and regularly crosses that line…

          • MANG

            That is a pretty good response, I read your politics there as libertarian or outright anarchist, and you make some points about domestic and foreign policy use of force that I am quite sympathetic with… However a response to you along those lines seems beyond the scope of this forum.

          • echelon

            Why is it beyond this forum? That’s what a forum is for! My posts are long and detailed. If it’s TL;DR for people, fine, then don’t read it and we won’t have a civil discussion.

            You’ve made some pretty grandiose statements that are best summed up as your feelings because sometimes people do bad things to other people. And because people do bad things to other people you want a giant control apparatus to be in place that can arbitrarily set boundaries, on mere whims of feelings like yours, that can completely gut peoples’ natural, God given rights.

            Less laws equals more liberty always. Personally I don’t care about what things people own or do or how they use them or why they do them. So long as those things they own don’t trample my rights. Call it Libertarian or whatever you wish, but any way you slice it the control apparatus you so desire to be in place is entirely more likely to be the one to perpetuate the very thing you are scared of against you than your neighbor.

        • dan

          Then Leave and find a country where you can trust the general public. A silencer doesn’t make the weapon any more lethal. Do you also not trust the general public in having a set a steak knives without being screened? Those are truely silent. Go join your friends at the Brady campaign you’ll fit in nicely with them.

        • SPQR9

          I do not trust you.

        • AK™

          What about “assault” rifles too?
          I mean the media outlet that coined the term 3 decades ago,admitted it was only doing it for pro-gun control groups to take away your constitutional right…

      • valorius


    • bfreeordie

      Europeans simply go to the hardware store to buy silencers. What evil do you see ordinay citizens commiting because they have reduced the report their weapon makes?

      • dan citizen

        I agree, europeans have no trouble and much benefit from suppressors, but comparing europeans to americans is a little iffy.

        Euopeans haven’t gone on a country invading spree in years. Whereas the US is still well in the “gun waving drunk who thinks he’s invincible” stage of international policy.

        Couple this culture with an education system that rates right up there with Estonia and a mass media that makes tabloids look reliable.

        Never underestimate the our ability as americans to screw up a good thing.

        • claymore

          So what does this anti-American screed have to do with suppressor regulation?

          • dan citizen

            You misunderstand me.

            This world needs our type of foreign policy! ISIS should have received 200 metric tons of air force therapy months ago. International borders? UN approval? Screw that, what are those beheading happy nutjobs gonna do? sue us?

            Japan got their butts handed to them in WW2, but look at the gains they made before they jumped out of their weight division and took us on… They did this by thinking they were invincible, and if they had stopped a little sooner they’d own half the pacific rim. That sort of far reaching stuff is what we have in a smaller dose right now.

            Education, well, we suck at that.

            These things combined lead to a populace that can find a way to get in trouble with anything, hell we burn down houses cooking a turkey. So when someone says: Those europeans do it without any bad results…. I say that this does not apply to the US.

            If the SIG “muzzle brake” hits the market I am betting some redneck will turn one into a suppressor within a week using a paper towel tube, and in doing so will take off some extra fingers, it will likely be on youtube, and I absolutely will wathc it a dozen times.

            Being american isn’t always about being responsible, freedom hurts.

        • nik

          Foreign policy has exactly what to do with this ATF decision, or the topic of suppressors in general?

          • dan citizen

            bfreeordie posted: Europeans simply go to the hardware store to buy silencers. What evil do you see ordinay citizens commiting because they have reduced the report their weapon makes?

            I merely pointed out how we are a more feisty and rambunctious country, full of clever, poorly educated citizens that are inclined to engage in a wide range of violent recreation activities.

            So just because some tame europeans can go into a store and buy a suppressor for 20 euros without causing trouble does not mean we americans won’t manage to find a way to get into all sorts of youtube-worthy nonsense with given the same opportunity.

            This is not a bad thing.

          • That Guy

            You seem to think it a good thing that Americans can be sent to prison for 10 years and stripped of their civil rights over a piece of pipe or an oil filter duct-taped to the muzzle of a gun.

            You’re a statist pig.

          • dan citizen

            I have an extensive posting history here as well as a 3 decade presence in the firearms industry, much of it working with and developing NFA products. My morals and beliefs are well known.

            I am neither a statist, nor am I pro NFA regulation. I do not believe that suppressor regulation is constitutional. But I work within this field and am compliant with laws as they stand.

            Saying that we are a rambunctious people that will find new and fun ways to cause harmless mayhem with any truck, pet, weapon, skateboard, or tool we are given is not saying that these things should be regulated.

            Saying that europeans and americans are fundamentally different and that we cannot be easily compared is not the same as supporting unconstitutional laws.

        • Um, I guess you haven;t been paying attention to France and Russia, then. . .

          Most european countries CAN’T go on a “country invading spree” because their military cannot (except in very limited size expeditionary forces) deploy overseas.

          • dan citizen

            Other than Russia tilting Ukraine and snagging Crimea they’ve all been tame for a while.

            If they were inclined they could invade somebody. Maybe an easy country like Burkina Faso, or maybe Fiji.

    • claymore

      Why not they are available in hardware stores and other places and completely unregulated even in not gun free europe?

    • valorius

      I would be “fine with it” if every gun sold in the us was factory suppressed.

      • dan citizen

        When I was in the UK it was easier to get a permitted firearm with a suppressor than without, much as in the US it is easier to drive a car with a muffler than it is to drive one with straight pipes.

    • SPQR9

      Your belief that “suppressor cores” or the resulting “suppressor” is some great evil that MUST NOT BE ALLOWED is silly. The idea that suppressors have some great danger is an utter fallacy that has stood for eight decades too many.

    • Mazer Rackham

      I suspect that you have no idea at all how much “liberty lube” you’re going to need for all the data that the NSA has gathered on you.

      YOU are being screened right now.

      Every semiauto you own is “capable” of being converted to a full-auto. You want to be “screened” before buying one?

      Every rifle you own is “capable” of being modified into an illegally unregistered SBR or chopped into being a handgun in violation of BATFE’s preferences. You want to be “screened” before buying one?

      Every muzzle brake you buy is “capable” of being converted into a flash suppressor that is illegal for Peons to own in several states. You want to be “screened” before buying one?

      Sure, you might take comfort in having “nothing to hide”, but some others of us understand Liberty and the importance of limiting the endless aggregation of power by the federal government, and the importance of applying the Bill of Rights to all states courtesy of the 14th Amendment.

      Just don’t invite the Big.Gov to screw us like you are willing to be screwed.

  • Andrew

    So are you guys still swearing up & down that the non-muzzle brake pistol version of the MPX will without a doubt be hitting store shelves in September-October 2014 (because your good friend the president of Sig told you so)? Here we sit in the middle of September and I don’t see them anywhere close to shipping yet…

  • militia

    I thought Sig was in bed with the feds. If so, what’s the problem? Oh yeah, fake problems.

  • Martin Cohn

    There’s only one little problem with this whole issue. “Shall not be infringed”

  • John

    Last time I checked, a suppressor is legally defined as something that reduces the report of a firearm. This muzzle brake does not reduce the report of the firearm unless you modify it, therefore it is not a suppressor. It seems to me Sig has a pretty open-and-shut case here.

    Then again, ludicrously long barrels also reduce the report of a firearm and those are perfectly legal, so maybe the solution here is just to remove suppressors, which are a safety feature anyway, from the NFA altogether.

  • Mystick

    I don’t see how this is SIG’s problem. It’s not being sold as a suppressor, and doesn’t function as a suppressor. If the end user modifies the weapon in such a manner to make it function as a suppressor, then the wrath of government falls on THEM, per the law, not the original manufacturer.

    This action by the ATF could set precedence saying that any firearm(or in this case, firearm accessory) with the POTENTIAL to be modified to fall into another class or require stamps is banned… that’s just no good.

    Following this logic, any plastic bottle, piece of tubular steel, steel washers, and gaskets that are cohabitant with a firearm are to be determined in violation. This is an absurd perversion of the ATF’s authority. What’s next? Tools that can be used to manufacture firearms or suppressors?

  • valorius

    Regardless if the suppressor issue, the mpx is a vastly overpriced item.

    These companies need to realize the obama gun panic is over and adjust their prices accordingly.

  • kingghidorah

    The good thing here is SIg not only has the $ and the balls to do stuff like this,they have innovation. Pistols that change frames, the brace and now this. I will continue to buy their firearms and look forward as to what they bring out next.

  • Rick

    about time someone took the deliberately obfuscated language the ATF uses against the citizenry back at the ATF. Bury ’em in BS, see how THEY like the taste!

  • Ironwulf

    I have been saying for several decades that ATF must be disbanded. (Then DEA and NAS!) These are the most power abusive organs in America.