PWS FSC Series MOD 2- opinions?

[SMT85 4]

Hello everyone, recently ordered a new upper from BCM, had them Pin an FSC556 from there options tab,

 

It arrived today and to my surprise it has the newer FSC series Mod 2 and not the original FSC556.

 

More or less looking for opinions.  What we already know, BATF letter no longer applies to this device as it specifically names

the FSC556 and not the Mod 2 and the open end might give the wrong impression to the wrong person.

 

If you were me would you send the upper back? Im finding next to no info videos or reviews on it. 

 

 PWS states that non of there FSC SERIES are considered flash hiders but..... this is NJ and no one can seem to define what is and isn't.

 

Is this device pushing it in the gray area to much? thoughts..

[Krdshrk 3,877]

I wouldn't worry about it.  It's still the FSC556...  Just the next generation of it.

[High Exposure 5,664]

That's a good question, and one I have been wondering myself. I really like the FSC556 brake and having that ATF letter was a bonus living in NJ.

 

I'd like to get my hands on one and take a look up close and personal before making a decision on if it is good to go in NJ or not. My gut is telling me it's a no-go here with Flash Suppressor in the name and no letter.....

 

Luckily I just scored an original FSC556 for a great price and can stash it for a rainy day.

[Rob0115 1,105]

You can still get some originals. I actually like them but they are a bit blasty to say the least.

 

I just looked at the gen 2 and in my non-legal opinion it's a no-go. It looks like a standard flash hider.

 

Here's one:

 

 

http://www.bravocompanyusa.com/Primary-Weapon-Systems-FSC556-Tactical-Compensator-p/pws-3fsc12a1.htm

[SMT85 4]

Thank you for your input guys.
 
 
 
Im torn on it. Part of me feels like some do. Not a dedicated flash hider, they list it as a comp, they make a flash hider and this is not it. etc
 
 then the other part says we want to cover our bases for that uniformed person who causes issues over it... this is NJ after all, we know what were dealing with as far as practical judgment goes. should be cautious, we all have LEO friends and most of us are baffled how incorrect they are 9/10 regarding gun laws and no one wants to be that guy who gets stopped and try to explain them selves.
 
then... part of me says heck with it, doesn't  matter anyway in the eyes of NJ govt, were not safe with anything on the end of the muzzle, they'll try and prosecute anything anyway and probably win so enjoy what i want.
  

 

 

Here are some pictures comparing the FSC series MOD2 to the FSC556 for others who are curious or may come across this in the future.

 

[image]

[image]

 

[image]

 

[image]

 

[image]

 

[image]

 

[image]

[image]

 

[ChrisJM981 924]

They have the same patent number. Is it in the letter by chance?

[High Exposure 5,664]

That enclosed circle of a front end looks an awful lot like an A2/Birdcage flash hider on the end of a comp.

 

Have you tried writing the company and seeing what they say? Does the ATF letter cover the Mod 2?

[Rob0115 1,105]

That enclosed circle of a front end looks an awful lot like an A2/Birdcage flash hider on the end of a comp.

 

Have you tried writing the company and seeing what they say? Does the ATF letter cover the Mod 2?

 

That's exactly what I thought.  It looks like a bird cage welded to a PWS base.

[SMT85 4]

 Unfortunatley the Patent number is not in the BATF letter, I emailed PWS to see where they stand and will update when I receive a response so we can close this out and others can reference it.  

 

But yea, lol. It pretty much looks like an a2 birdcage attached to the front.

[Rob0115 1,105]

also is that threading on the inside of the bird cage?  Would that further constitute a threaded barrel?  Another NJ no-no.

 

It's odd but would that be for a can attachment?

[Krdshrk 3,877]

also is that threading on the inside of the bird cage?  Would that further constitute a threaded barrel?  Another NJ no-no.

 

It's odd but would that be for a can attachment?

 

I do believe the Gen2 can take a suppressor... 

[High Exposure 5,664]

The original FSC556 could take the old Gemtech HALO as the twist mount.

[SMT85 4]

No threading, just ridges, from what i understand its to increase surface area to help minimize flash, there are other muzzle devices out there starting to use this method as well, the Proctor Muzzle Device is one also. Its a fairly new thing I've noticed manufactures are doing lately.

 

High Exposure is correct the original FSC556 can accept the old HALO mounts 

[Rob0115 1,105]

I've seen enough that I'd skip for an NJ rifle.  

[High Exposure 5,664]

I've seen enough that I'd skip for an NJ rifle.

 

Until I get more info, I am inclined to agree.

[SMT85 4]

 I received a response from PWS.

 

 copy and paste from my email..

 

------my question......

 

Dear Sir./Mam,
Hello how are you.

would The FSC series MOD 2 be covered under the BATF ruling like the FSC556 as a non flash supressing device.

I ask because BCM pinned a mod 2 on an upper i ordered when i selected the FSC556 in there options menu and had wanted to know where you guys stand on the MOD 2.
Iif not i will have to send the upper back as to be on the safer side being I'm a NJ resident. Please let me know

Thank you for your time

 

-----There response..

 

 

Hi Steven;

 

From our perspective and based on a number of conversations with those in the greater know than myself we have determined the FSC is the same with or without the open tines in the very front.  The design is an open-port compensator designed as a brake for shooting performance and muzzle control not for flash suppression.  Although this muzzle device does help to redirect flash from your line of sight and may reduce the overall sight signature of the flash it is not designed to suppress flash and has a poor performance record in this regard as it still creates large and bright side blasts due to the directional braking design.  I have worked with a number of customers and shops in NJ and all agree so far that the FSC still remains true to the design and verbiage addressed in the linked BATFE letter.

 

PWS FSC BATFE Response Letter -http://primaryweapons.com/documents/ATF_FSC556.pdf

 

I hope this message finds you well and that the provided information is helpful as you determine the best compensator for your use in your locale.  If there is anything else I can help you with now or in the future please do not hesitate to ask.  Thank you for your interest, continued support, and ongoing enthusiasm for PWS.

 

Best Wishes,

Owen

 

PWS Customer Service

[email protected]

PRIMARY WEAPONS SYSTEMS

208.780.6122

208.297.2675 fax

www.PrimaryWeapons.com

[Rob0115 1,105]

 I received a response from PWS.

 

 copy and paste from my email..

 

------my question......

 

Dear Sir./Mam,

Hello how are you.

 

would The FSC series MOD 2 be covered under the BATF ruling like the FSC556 as a non flash supressing device.

 

I ask because BCM pinned a mod 2 on an upper i ordered when i selected the FSC556 in there options menu and had wanted to know where you guys stand on the MOD 2.

Iif not i will have to send the upper back as to be on the safer side being I'm a NJ resident. Please let me know

 

Thank you for your time

 

-----There response..

 

 

Hi Steven;

 

From our perspective and based on a number of conversations with those in the greater know than myself we have determined the FSC is the same with or without the open tines in the very front.  The design is an open-port compensator designed as a brake for shooting performance and muzzle control not for flash suppression.  Although this muzzle device does help to redirect flash from your line of sight and may reduce the overall sight signature of the flash it is not designed to suppress flash and has a poor performance record in this regard as it still creates large and bright side blasts due to the directional braking design.  I have worked with a number of customers and shops in NJ and all agree so far that the FSC still remains true to the design and verbiage addressed in the linked BATFE letter.

 

PWS FSC BATFE Response Letter -http://primaryweapons.com/documents/ATF_FSC556.pdf

 

I hope this message finds you well and that the provided information is helpful as you determine the best compensator for your use in your locale.  If there is anything else I can help you with now or in the future please do not hesitate to ask.  Thank you for your interest, continued support, and ongoing enthusiasm for PWS.

 

Best Wishes,

Owen

 

PWS Customer Service

[email protected]

PRIMARY WEAPONS SYSTEMS

208.780.6122

208.297.2675 fax

www.PrimaryWeapons.com

 

If you like the upper don't send it back there are reasonable choices you can have.  Sure fire makes an expensive and a less expensive comp (pro-comp), spikes dynacomp.  I ran a bcm for a long time in NJ.  

[SMT85 4]

   Looks aside,  given the response from PWS that it is a designed, to be used, functions, and sold as a muzzle brake, and willing to back there claim that it is not a flash suppressing device and is still inline with there BATF letter.  I am going to keep it.  

 

Worst comes to worst down the road if we find or here differently i can always remove it as long as I'm not the test subject...

 

    Its better than most companies responses who would simply tell you to follow your local laws and leave it at that like many other popular brands people run here in NJ on rifles.

 

    But as usual its up to the consumer to decide what they are willing to to do in this state.  Hopefully but no promises maybe i can get a low light video of the  FSC mod 2 series in use and further update info. 

[fishnut 2,358]

If it makes you feel any better I plan on putting one of the mod2's on an upcoming build and I'm not worried about it.

[fatty 241]

I have the original FSC556 and love it.  neighboring shooters... not so much lol

[n4p226r 105]

I don't like the fsc or the mod 2 but I'd use it. It's a compensator. That's what it's designed to do. Good enough for me.

[redtornado23 0]

just had a friend bring his upper and this brake to a shop here in NJ and was told that it was a flash suppressor and the gunsmith would not install it...i don't want to name names, but it's crazy that we are still dealing with ambiguity like this as far as brakes/flash hiders go.

[Rob0115 1,105]

just had a friend bring his upper and this brake to a shop here in NJ and was told that it was a flash suppressor and the gunsmith would not install it...i don't want to name names, but it's crazy that we are still dealing with ambiguity like this as far as brakes/flash hiders go.

It's intentional.

[redtornado23 0]

agreed