• Frank's Lesson's Contest

    We want to see your skills! Post a video between now and November 1st showing what you've learned from Frank's lessons and 3 people will be selected to win a free shirt. Good luck everyone!

    Create a channel Learn more

  • Having trouble using the site?

    Contact support

Suppressors New TBAC cans for 2024

#151
Yeah, I think the path taken here was ultra conservative from a legal standpoint

I bet it was Prince law firm in Pennsylvania

Josh Prince is a good guy, but his advice always boils down to absolutely zero risk even if the risks are negligible. He does little to help you define the actual level of risk. And he leverages paranoia about the ATF to get you to choke down the turd sandwich.

I am not a lawyer, though I do medicolegal consulting. You have to understand risk and precedent to do anything more than scare people into being ultra conservative.

Does anyone really think that with the entire suppressor industry doing this, and tens, if not hundreds of thousands of suppressors designed this very way floating around out there with approval, that the ATF is just going to come down with a heavy hand and force the recall of all of those suppressors or revoke the manufacturing licenses of those who made them?

To me it sounds preposterous
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: VanJoe and AMGtuned
#153
secondofangle2 said:
Yeah, I think the path taken here was ultra conservative from a legal standpoint

I bet it was Prince law firm in Pennsylvania

Josh Prince is a good guy, but his advice always boils down to absolutely zero risk even if the risks are negligible. He does little to help you define the actual level of risk. And he leverages paranoia about the ATF to get you to choke down the turd sandwich.

I am not a lawyer, though I do medicolegal consulting. You have to understand risk and precedent to do anything more than scare people into being ultra conservative.

Does anyone really think that with the entire suppressor industry doing this, and tens, if not hundreds of thousands of suppressors designed this very way floating around out there with approval, that the ATF is just going to come down with a heavy hand and force the recall of all of those suppressors or revoke the manufacturing licenses of those who made them?

To me it sounds preposterous
Click to expand...
Based off what they have tried to do with pistol braces. Yes I could see the ATF trying to do exactly that.


However I also agree with your risk assessment explanation.

That being said I don’t blame TBAC for not take that risk no matter how negligible we might think it is.

And as much as I have always wanted to love modular cans. I’m not a fan. It sucks and cost more money. But the modular and “one can to do it all” cans always have downfalls over dedicated/non modular cans. At least in my opinion
 
  • Like
Reactions: AMGtuned, Mrindecisive and kthomas
#154
When I say modular I'm more referring to the ability to switch things up which is exactly what a flat end cap or baffles would be. It seems that if all these companies stood together they would be stronger against any future corruptions.
 
#155
EmanP said:
When I say modular I'm more referring to the ability to switch things up which is exactly what a flat end cap or baffles would be. It seems that if all these companies stood together they would be stronger against any future corruptions.
Click to expand...
I’m sure Tbac and any other suppressor company out there would put in on the fight if the ATF started playing games.

But the suppressor market isn’t gonna have the mass public support against the ATF that pistol braces did. Pistol braces have a much larger customer base than supressors.

But yes the ability to change an end cap to me isn’t worth it. If I tried to change it on any of my cans I have right now with that ability I doubt I even could due to carbon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mrindecisive
#158
Based on the Magnus product page the K RR will be the best for PRS, followed by the S RR. The S seems like the best do it all can as far as balancing recoil control and sound reduction. I went with the K because I never shoot without ear pro. I wanted the most recoil control without having to deal with the concussion from a break. I think TBAC is putting together recoil numbers for on the RR cans with a PRS rifle in 6 dasher soon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mebgardner and BurtG
#159
RS14 said:
Based off what they have tried to do with pistol braces. Yes I could see the ATF trying to do exactly that.


However I also agree with your risk assessment explanation.

That being said I don’t blame TBAC for not take that risk no matter how negligible we might think it is.

And as much as I have always wanted to love modular cans. I’m not a fan. It sucks and cost more money. But the modular and “one can to do it all” cans always have downfalls over dedicated/non modular cans. At least in my opinion
Click to expand...
the pistol brace is quite the opposite, it's a shortcut to avoiding registration of an NFA item.

And it was the consumers, not the manufacturers, left in the lurch.
 
#160
Mrindecisive said:
Based on the Magnus product page the K RR will be the best for PRS, followed by the S RR. The S seems like the best do it all can as far as balancing recoil control and sound reduction. I went with the K because I never shoot without ear pro. I wanted the most recoil control without having to deal with the concussion from a break. I think TBAC is putting together recoil numbers for on the RR cans with a PRS rifle in 6 dasher soon.
Click to expand...
It seems the recoil reduction numbers are very similar but sound is a lot less on the bigger ones. I’m used to using a 338 ultra so Il prolly just get the standard Magnus RR
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mrindecisive
#162
secondofangle2 said:
the pistol brace is quite the opposite, it's a shortcut to avoiding registration of an NFA item.

And it was the consumers, not the manufacturers, left in the lurch.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t say it’s an opposite. Although yes you are correct the pistol brace is a shortcut to avoid. And legally purchased suppressors is following their rules. The pistol brace was also following their rules. The ATF changes their mind whenever they want with no concern for the public.

And manufacturers were effected and took action against the ATF on the pistol brace stuff as well as consumers.
 
#163
BurtG said:
It seems the recoil reduction numbers are very similar but sound is a lot less on the bigger ones. I’m used to using a 338 ultra so Il prolly just get the standard Magnus RR
Click to expand...
The big reason I picked the k is based on my assumption that it might few more like a break than standard suppressor regarding recoil impulse. I got to compare a KGM R6 and Maverick this past weekend. They both worked great at keeping the muzzle on target. But the recoil impulse was completely different between the two. The KGM had a push like a standard suppressor and the Maverick didn’t have that slow push, it was fast like a break but not concussive.

We’re shooting 20-25lb rifles with br cartridges. So it really doesn’t even matter. No suppressor or break will change the fact that I’m a mid pack guy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 260284, BurtG and RS14
#164
RS14 said:
The [.gov] changes their mind whenever they want with no concern for the public.
Click to expand...
If CHEVRON doctrine gets overturned at SCOTUS, this is all going to change pretty quick.
Not the end of the problems, by any stretch, but a change never the less.

(Chevron is what allows the .gov to manipulate a statute's ambiguity to such great lengths)
 
  • Like
Reactions: stefan73, DeathBeforeDismount, AMGtuned and 2 others
#165
RS14 said:
Based off what they have tried to do with pistol braces. Yes I could see the ATF trying to do exactly that.


However I also agree with your risk assessment explanation.

That being said I don’t blame TBAC for not take that risk no matter how negligible we might think it is.

And as much as I have always wanted to love modular cans. I’m not a fan. It sucks and cost more money. But the modular and “one can to do it all” cans always have downfalls over dedicated/non modular cans. At least in my opinion
Click to expand...
I don't know if you're intending to do so but your post comes off as passive-aggressively trying to cancel other people's preferences .
 
#169
We shot the magnus S -RR this weekend. It's legit and hearing safe. Most of the guys I know are getting the K so while I am sure it will be louder, hoping it can be shot without ears as well. The Can really handled recoil well. Still not brake good but about a mil of difference from shot to rest.
 
#170
HillBilly n TX said:
After comparing the Magnus and Magnus-RR, would it be safe to say one picks-up between 6 to 10 dB at shooters ear one when choosing the RR version? Seems like a fairly significant loss in suppression, though recoil reduction looks great.
Click to expand...
Braked and vented end cap cans, have always been louder than one with the proper end cap. Same with opening the end cap bore. Failure to mention such a thing would be bad business, in my opinion. However, I think someone addressed that already; I'd have to read through again to be sure.

While I like this idea; it seems like it appeals more to the folks who are already shooting low-recoil cartridges 🤔 . Glad they did it with a big-bore line of cans, so folks with man-sized rifles can use the advantages as well.

One more thing; modular cans are going to ruin the suppressor industry. Too many rules and regs. Buy once, cry once; and if you need another can, stop being poor 🤷‍♂️
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: devldogs55, TBACRAY and Charlie112
#172
KnowNothing256 said:
So…not buy once, cry once, then. More of a “buy more, men don’t cry.”

Roger that.
Click to expand...
Well, most of us "needed" more than one gun, right? And there are plenty who feel the need to get all the best money can buy.

Then want to buy ONE suppressor.

Unsuppressed shooting is uncivilized.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mrindecisive and FuhQ
#173
I ordered the 6.9" RR can, 6.9 is just a good number IMO. Shot it at the PRS Finale and really liked it. While I will still primarily be a muzzle brake user, it will be nice to shoot suppressor only matches from time to time if I want or go hunt suppressed. I honestly wish everyone at the Finale was using a suppressor on the trailer stage with us shooting side by side. lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: BurtG
#176
TheOE800 said:
Talk us through that.
Click to expand...
So the S length is entirely too long, IMHO, for a full length rifle. The S would look appropriate for a 22"-ish rifle.

The K is perfect for those shooting PRS and/or those who wear ear pro anyway.
1000049629.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thebiglebowski, mebgardner and RS14
#179
secondofangle2 said:
Yeah, I think the path taken here was ultra conservative from a legal standpoint

I bet it was Prince law firm in Pennsylvania

Josh Prince is a good guy, but his advice always boils down to absolutely zero risk even if the risks are negligible. He does little to help you define the actual level of risk. And he leverages paranoia about the ATF to get you to choke down the turd sandwich.

I am not a lawyer, though I do medicolegal consulting. You have to understand risk and precedent to do anything more than scare people into being ultra conservative.

Does anyone really think that with the entire suppressor industry doing this, and tens, if not hundreds of thousands of suppressors designed this very way floating around out there with approval, that the ATF is just going to come down with a heavy hand and force the recall of all of those suppressors or revoke the manufacturing licenses of those who made them?

To me it sounds preposterous
Click to expand...
By nature I am inclined to agree with you completely, but watching what is going on down south and what is happening to our previous president brings new meaning to risk and precedent.
 
#181
In a thread somewhere, Zac entertained the idea of a 338 ultra scaled up to 375 cheytac. And I would be on board for that. May require a pre-order/group buy if I read between the lines correctly
 
#182
Zak Smith said:
Before your edit I drew this diagram, so I'm still gonna post it, LOL.

Top is a HUB can with a DT/HUB adapter. Bottom is a CB. Bottom setup takes up more space inside. Top setup has a longer effective length. For Summit testing, we recorded the length "as tested". In your case we would have included the approx extra inch the Keymo adds.

View attachment 8324435
Click to expand...

Considering the performance trades represented by this diagram. For non hard use, for hunting, for PRS, for low firing rates WRT suppression and / or blast mitigation, or recoil impulse control. Those trade offs, for that type of use.

Is it "better" to have more BC volume, or "better" to use a single / dual port brake type mount?

I did a read thru of the thread, and did not see a clear answer, probably because the answer is well known already. I saw the picture and this is the question that came up to me.
 
#183
NiteQwill said:
So the S length is entirely too long, IMHO, for a full length rifle. The S would look appropriate for a 22"-ish rifle.

The K is perfect for those shooting PRS and/or those who wear ear pro anyway.
View attachment 8336215
Click to expand...
This picture is the magnus k SR RR? Considering the magnus K SR or Magnus K RR SR for PRS. Problem is I’m already running a 28” barrel.
 
#188
NiteQwill said:
My lead time went from 6 months to less than 3 months. So, that's a good sign. Hopefully a combination of 36 hr form 4 approvals will lead to a miracle. 😆
Click to expand...
I'm wishing you the very best of luck! My best to date is 52 days. It was really nice of them to approve 7 at once. It just happened to be 4 of them were at 52 days.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: kthomas and NiteQwill
#192
Zak Smith said:
I suggest reading 2021R-05F page 36 and trying to make sense of that...

A single suppressor that can be taken apart has never been an issue. It's the extra parts that are the problem.
Click to expand...
SilencerCo hybrid newer brake swap for end cap made my can longer. With what I'm reading, that was illegal in the opinion of your attorney ? And that super small company named silencer co is just taking a ginormous risk ?
 
#193
TexasCommander said:
SilencerCo hybrid newer brake swap for end cap made my can longer. With what I'm reading, that was illegal in the opinion of your attorney ? And that super small company named silencer co is just taking a ginormous risk ?
Click to expand...
Different company, different lawyers, different opinions, different levels of risk assessed. With how arbitrary and capricious the atf can be especially under pedo Joe, how much risk do you want to take with your company?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DeathBeforeDismount and stefan73
#194
TexasCommander said:
SilencerCo hybrid newer brake swap for end cap made my can longer. With what I'm reading, that was illegal in the opinion of your attorney ? And that super small company named silencer co is just taking a ginormous risk ?
Click to expand...
If I had one suppressor; I WOULD NOT have 2 different sized end caps for it. And I WOULD NOT make modifications to the registered length.

But, you do you homie
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: devldogs55 and stefan73
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Suppressors Muzzle device options for TBAC 338 Ultra?
Replies
17
Views
488
StuartV
S
GRIFFIN_ARMAMENT
Suppressors Introducing the New Sportsman Ultra Light HD™ Hunting Suppressors
Replies
4
Views
527
GRIFFIN_ARMAMENT
GRIFFIN_ARMAMENT
M
Suppressors Help Me Choose My Next Can.
Replies
86
Views
3K
mebgardner
M
F
2024 Legion Memorial Run and Gun, Honoring the Fallen as a Family
Replies
9
Views
302
FatBoy
F
E
URSA 3000 Yard Challenge (2024) - Announcement
Replies
18
Views
789
cameljockey230
C
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts