I'm curious about the standard, or lack thereof, for this so called field test.  Does the pinky have to touch the muzzle for a device to fail the test or will just going in part of the way be enough to fail the test?  I've looked at several muzzle devices that appear  they may fail the pinky test but the devices are not classified as flash hiders.

The pinky test is not legit

The pinky test is a NJ made up test from looks of the common A1 and A2 flash hiders comparing them to a Branson Brake type muzzle device. If you are in the field, a simple test would be to shoot the rifle without a muzzle device, then add one on and test it. If it reduces the flash, it is a flash suppressor. If not, it is not. Common brakes and/or compensators could be small-hole end devices that you are referring to, cross-cut slotted designs, holed devices, and other configurations, all of which can have open ends.

The "pinky test" is rule of thumb. If a muzzle device is totally open at the front, it is pretty hard to make an argument that it lends any "braking force" from the muzzle blast. There is no criteria in the law as to what constitutes a legitimate muzzle brake or compensator so the pinky test evolved as simply a means to show the device is not totally open. It would be best to choose a device whose manufacturer deems it a compensator or muzzle brake while eschewing any reference to flash hiding.

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

The "pinky test" is rule of thumb. If a muzzle device is totally open at the front, it is pretty hard to make an argument that it lends any "braking force" from the muzzle blast. There is no criteria in the law as to what constitutes a legitimate muzzle brake or compensator so the pinky test evolved as simply a means to show the device is not totally open. It would be best to choose a device whose manufacturer deems it a compensator or muzzle brake while eschewing any reference to flash hiding.

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

........nooooooooo, it's a rule of pinky.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's nonsense.

Is the YHM Phantom legal?  Opinions.....

The BRAKE is, not the FLASH HIDER, if you are talking about adding it to a semi-auto with a pistol grip.

The "pinky test" is rule of thumb. If a muzzle device is totally open at the front, it is pretty hard to make an argument that it lends any "braking force" from the muzzle blast. There is no criteria in the law as to what constitutes a legitimate muzzle brake or compensator so the pinky test evolved as simply a means to show the device is not totally open. It would be best to choose a device whose manufacturer deems it a compensator or muzzle brake while eschewing any reference to flash hiding.

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

^^^ This. The pinky test is like a field gauge for an end user, not a legitimate test used for proof of guilt or innocence.

 

NJ SP Firearms Unit does not follow the ATF definition of "flash suppression". They do not measure flash before and flash after the device is installed. They primarily look at the construction of the device to make sure there is a closed end and an opening in it for the projectile.

 

When it comes down to it, a rifle that is in question as to being a "Assault Weapon" or not is set down in front of a few NJSP FU members and they come to an "opinion" on its legality. If they decide it does violate NJ Statutes, the courts then make the final determination during the subsequent trial.

 

It is a little more complicated and official than that but that's the quick and dirty version.

How about those thingamabobs that slip over and clamp on to a perfectly legal brake.  It looks to me that they add the properties of a linear comp to the attached device.  They are designed to mitigate side blast and direct all blast forward, just like a linear comp.  Is there any nj law against a linear comp being a two piece system?

 

Something like this:

https://www.armsunlimited.com/FERFRANS-Muzzle-Brake-Concussion-Reduction-System-p/mb-crd.htm

 

How about those thingamabobs that slip over and clamp on to a perfectly legal brake.  It looks to me that they add the properties of a linear comp to the attached device.  They are designed to mitigate side blast and direct all blast forward, just like a linear comp.  Is there any nj law against a linear comp being a two piece system?

 

Something like this:

https://www.armsunlimited.com/FERFRANS-Muzzle-Brake-Concussion-Reduction-System-p/mb-crd.htm

 

 

By directing the blast forward. Would this not in effect totally negate the benefit of the brake???  Might as well remove it all and put on a thread protector!

I'm curious about the standard, or lack thereof, for this so called field test.  Does the pinky have to touch the muzzle for a device to fail the test or will just going in part of the way be enough to fail the test?  I've looked at several muzzle devices that appear they may fail the pinky test but the devices are not classified as flash hiders.

If your pinky breaks the plane it's for reals and you might get herpes. Even just a little, it's a mucous membrane thing. If you can get your pinky past the front but can't touch the muzzle you can try for a two point conversion or call it safe at third. Unless you roll a 20-sided die and hit double damage.

By directing the blast forward. Would this not in effect totally negate the benefit of the brake???  Might as well remove it all and put on a thread protector!

 

I have no idea.  The site says it works (brakes) with both parts attached but offers "full" braking when it's off.  The brake shoots jets of gas back into the expansion chamber of the slip on thingy and then redirects the gas forward. 

This thread is a bit too much. I'm surprised people even believed some thing like the "pinky test" could actually be legitimate. C'mon guys, what a joke.

 

That's like the "Palm test" for knives that always goes around every now and then. If the blade is longer than your palm it's illegal? So Andre the giant would be able to own a machete while a little person would be able to only own a keychain knife? Hahaha it doesn't make any sense at all.

How about the shoe size test? I wear size 13.

 

Sent from an undisclosed location.

 

How about the shoe size test? I wear size 13.Sent from an undisclosed location.

What about the 21 foot rule? I only have 2 feet.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

How about the shoe size test? I wear size 13. Sent from an undisclosed location.

 

Wishful thinking again, Paul?

As for the Ferfans device, I doubt that the NJSP has thought that far ahead. Not addressed in statute because it is a relatively new thing. If, indeed, it slipped on and clamped in place, you are probably GTG. However, from the picture and from their very limited description this seems more likely a quick detach thread, like an Acme thread. If that's the case, it would have to be pinned and welded in place, otherwise you have a threaded barrel (once the underlying brake is permanently affixed to the barrel it becomes part of the barrel).

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

That's what I love about this forum.  So many helpful people here.

It's not a " real " test....more of a guideline

As for the Ferfans device, I doubt that the NJSP has thought that far ahead. Not addressed in statute because it is a relatively new thing. If, indeed, it slipped on and clamped in place, you are probably GTG. However, from the picture and from their very limited description this seems more likely a quick detach thread, like an Acme thread. If that's the case, it would have to be pinned and welded in place, otherwise you have a threaded barrel (once the underlying brake is permanently affixed to the barrel it becomes part of the barrel).

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

. I don't know about the ferfrans but the sure fire version is compression fit.

This thread is a bit too much. I'm surprised people even believed some thing like the "pinky test" could actually be legitimate.

True. When dealing with gun owners, most NJ elected officials choose to use a different finger.

My battle comp fails the pinky test since the restrictor is recessed.