I'm wondering if anyone knows what the difference between a RC vs RC2 is?
Why are the RC's more expensive than the RC2's?
Do they use the same mounts?
TIA
Why are the RC's more expensive than the RC2's?
Do they use the same mounts?
TIA
Suppressors Surefire SOCOM RC vs RC2?
- Thread starter Mike_Honcho
- Start date
Surefire's website says, "These 2nd-Gen models feature a new front-plate and baffle enhancements from the original USSOCOM-award-winning models—making them even stronger and better performing. These SOCOM 2 suppressors, like the original models, were constructed from the finest high-temperature alloys and also boast reduced back-pressure and a virtual elimination of first-round flash."
The 7.62 cans will work on either 7.62, or 5.56 mounts, but the 5.56 cans only work with the 5.56 mounts.
The 7.62 cans will work on either 7.62, or 5.56 mounts, but the 5.56 cans only work with the 5.56 mounts.
There was a smoking hot price on the original RC a while back. Got mine for $875 for the DE color got my MK18. Other than that, the RC 2 has a different endcap, slight baffle change at the beginning of the stack. Other than that they’re identical. Mounts are the same, and wyfox is correct on the price, sans the brief sale.
Mine is tolerable without ears on a 10.3” barrel on an open range, but I always shoot with ears after I get an idea of the sound/tone. I wouldn’t wanna shoot it inside or under awnings without pro.
Mine is tolerable without ears on a 10.3” barrel on an open range, but I always shoot with ears after I get an idea of the sound/tone. I wouldn’t wanna shoot it inside or under awnings without pro.
I have both and besides looks, function wise I can't tell a difference. I run them on a 6.5 CM 24'' and 308 20'' and as mentioned hearing safe.
I looked into these when I got my KAC rifle. Not many 3/4 mounts out there. Don't wanna tell you the wrong info, I'd call Surefire and ask them. It's what I usually do. I recall one being rated for .300mag and another not. One had better suppression levels than the other. None were top notch in performance, FWIW, and I couldn't see how they warrant the price they sell for.
I opted for the KAC can because it suppresses just as well, has a solid mount and was just easier. It's costly, but if you have a KAC rifle already, it's not too bad. They have some of the best mounts and locking systems on the market --can indexes TDC to the brake and ratchets on using ball bearings that lock into the mount. SOLID.
If you want a hard use can, I'd recommend the Saker or the KAC from experience. Saker is probably the better all around can though. Good luck!
I opted for the KAC can because it suppresses just as well, has a solid mount and was just easier. It's costly, but if you have a KAC rifle already, it's not too bad. They have some of the best mounts and locking systems on the market --can indexes TDC to the brake and ratchets on using ball bearings that lock into the mount. SOLID.
If you want a hard use can, I'd recommend the Saker or the KAC from experience. Saker is probably the better all around can though. Good luck!
I have SF and KAC suppressors in 22 and 30 cal. Most experts consider them the best and you pay for military-level durability. What I like about the SFs is that a 30 cal can will mount on a 22 cal rifle SF host. KAC mounting system is superior in my humble opinion, but you can't go wrong with either one.
That sliding lock thing was awful on our sr25s you had to shoot a few times to get that mount settled. There would be a significant shift until it settled, 3 rounds to be sure. The guns themselves had plain steel barrels and were prone to rust. It's crazy to me they have so much appeal on the civilian market.
NT4 certainly has a fetish following but has been replaced by the QDC series that has a much better mounting system IMHO. That said, I wonder if any 5.56mm suppressor has EVER had more rounds through it than the NT4. I believe the USMC recently bought a big load of them following an experiment to equip basic infantry units with suppressors. Having just sold a KAC bipod for $1,085 and opting to sell a Triple Tap when it literally fell off ( not a good rockset job I guess) my KAC/Magpul SE for a crazy amount of money, I understand the attraction of legacy KAC equipment. I love their stuff, but it was a no-brainer to spin a SF FH onto the end of the SR-15 and use an already owned SF RC.
at this point The surefire socom rc suppressor most definitely has more rounds through it than NT4. Additionally, If the USMC "buys" a boatload of anything it's a very small boat. They are a very small organization. Even smaller is the number of actual gun slingers they have expending large quantities of 556 every FY.
Who is buying more of any suppressor? The US Army, a very big boat indeed, was very late to the party on buy SAPI plates and Interceptor vests and has not revealed any supp purchase for any basic infantry unit as far as I’ve read. The Army AQ command is a joke.
For the record, I only have QDC supps if we’re just counting KAC supps, so I hold them in high regard. I also own two SF supps. And why the ‘buy”? How are they different in acquisition than anyone else? Put it in your budget and if Congress approves, buy them. It wasn’t a plus-up.
For the record, I only have QDC supps if we’re just counting KAC supps, so I hold them in high regard. I also own two SF supps. And why the ‘buy”? How are they different in acquisition than anyone else? Put it in your budget and if Congress approves, buy them. It wasn’t a plus-up.
Last edited:
