Re: Threaded vs. quick detach suppressor?
bacarrat to you own any you mentioned above and where did you go in houston to buy them
bacarrat to you own any you mentioned above and where did you go in houston to buy them
Suppressors Threaded vs. quick detach suppressor?
- Thread starter VKC
- Start date
Re: Threaded vs. quick detach suppressor?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mike#9</div><div class="ubbcode-body">bacarrat to you own any you mentioned above and where did you go in houston to buy them </div></div>
Mike, me and my friends usually use Houston Armory (a Hide sponor) to get our suppressors. Talk to Chris over there, they usually have a pretty good selection of suppressors in stock.
If you want to check some suppressors out in use, me and a couple of other Hide members usually go out to ASC on Saturday or Sunday mornings at the 600 yard line. There is usually a decent selection of suppressors out there. From TBAC, AAC, to SF, and YHM.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mike#9</div><div class="ubbcode-body">bacarrat to you own any you mentioned above and where did you go in houston to buy them </div></div>
Mike, me and my friends usually use Houston Armory (a Hide sponor) to get our suppressors. Talk to Chris over there, they usually have a pretty good selection of suppressors in stock.
If you want to check some suppressors out in use, me and a couple of other Hide members usually go out to ASC on Saturday or Sunday mornings at the 600 yard line. There is usually a decent selection of suppressors out there. From TBAC, AAC, to SF, and YHM.
Re: Threaded vs. quick detach suppressor?
I don't understand the multiple people stating they save money by buying one can and then buy half a dozen adapters at $100-$200 each to configure each rifle. That doesn't sound like saving money to me.
Some cans attach to standard NATO flash hiders. No extra adapters needed.
A threaded can goes on the threads that are already there. No extra adapters needed.
Personally I use an OPS INC 12th model can because I believe it has features that are substantially different and better than what else is out there, but man the $180 brake and collar per rifle does not "save me money".
I don't understand the multiple people stating they save money by buying one can and then buy half a dozen adapters at $100-$200 each to configure each rifle. That doesn't sound like saving money to me.
Some cans attach to standard NATO flash hiders. No extra adapters needed.
A threaded can goes on the threads that are already there. No extra adapters needed.
Personally I use an OPS INC 12th model can because I believe it has features that are substantially different and better than what else is out there, but man the $180 brake and collar per rifle does not "save me money".
Re: Threaded vs. quick detach suppressor?
I know this has been mentioned, but it bears repeating. When you fire rounds through a can it heats up, so much that unless you have protective gloves, you won't be able to take it off without burning your hands. This being said, there is no use for a quick detach silencer. When setting up a olt action of semi auto, it should not make a difference either. A QD qill "grind" down over time (and for some it may take longer than others) but a thread on will last as long as the barrel. The OPS Inc can will thread on without the ability to cross thread as quick as any QD silencer, but will not shift as long as you have the product and will last you longer than any ohters. If you get the 12th model, you can fire without the silencer and still have the benefit of a brake, don't know why you'd take it off, but it's your choice. As far as any operations go, if you ask any "operator" they will always have the can on the rifle unless air dropping to decrease added length. There is no need for QD unless you want the new trendy can that you will eventually trade in for something more reliable. Good luck with the QD, for any future purchases I hope you see the difference.
I know this has been mentioned, but it bears repeating. When you fire rounds through a can it heats up, so much that unless you have protective gloves, you won't be able to take it off without burning your hands. This being said, there is no use for a quick detach silencer. When setting up a olt action of semi auto, it should not make a difference either. A QD qill "grind" down over time (and for some it may take longer than others) but a thread on will last as long as the barrel. The OPS Inc can will thread on without the ability to cross thread as quick as any QD silencer, but will not shift as long as you have the product and will last you longer than any ohters. If you get the 12th model, you can fire without the silencer and still have the benefit of a brake, don't know why you'd take it off, but it's your choice. As far as any operations go, if you ask any "operator" they will always have the can on the rifle unless air dropping to decrease added length. There is no need for QD unless you want the new trendy can that you will eventually trade in for something more reliable. Good luck with the QD, for any future purchases I hope you see the difference.
Re: Threaded vs. quick detach suppressor?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dregsofsociety</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I know this has been mentioned, but it bears repeating. When you fire rounds through a can it heats up, so much that unless you have protective gloves, you won't be able to take it off without burning your hands. This being said, there is no use for a quick detach silencer. When setting up a olt action of semi auto, it should not make a difference either. A QD qill "grind" down over time (and for some it may take longer than others) but a thread on will last as long as the barrel. The OPS Inc can will thread on without the ability to cross thread as quick as any QD silencer, but will not shift as long as you have the product and will last you longer than any ohters. If you get the 12th model, you can fire without the silencer and still have the benefit of a brake, don't know why you'd take it off, but it's your choice. As far as any operations go, if you ask any "operator" they will always have the can on the rifle unless air dropping to decrease added length. There is no need for QD unless you want the new trendy can that you will eventually trade in for something more reliable. Good luck with the QD, for any future purchases I hope you see the difference. </div></div>
A lot of wrong in this. But hey, it's only your 7th post here of which only your 5th post regarding Ops INC suppressors so....
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dregsofsociety</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I know this has been mentioned, but it bears repeating. When you fire rounds through a can it heats up, so much that unless you have protective gloves, you won't be able to take it off without burning your hands. This being said, there is no use for a quick detach silencer. When setting up a olt action of semi auto, it should not make a difference either. A QD qill "grind" down over time (and for some it may take longer than others) but a thread on will last as long as the barrel. The OPS Inc can will thread on without the ability to cross thread as quick as any QD silencer, but will not shift as long as you have the product and will last you longer than any ohters. If you get the 12th model, you can fire without the silencer and still have the benefit of a brake, don't know why you'd take it off, but it's your choice. As far as any operations go, if you ask any "operator" they will always have the can on the rifle unless air dropping to decrease added length. There is no need for QD unless you want the new trendy can that you will eventually trade in for something more reliable. Good luck with the QD, for any future purchases I hope you see the difference. </div></div>
A lot of wrong in this. But hey, it's only your 7th post here of which only your 5th post regarding Ops INC suppressors so....
Re: Threaded vs. quick detach suppressor?
So from someone that has been registered for years, lurking longer, and hasnt felt like chiming in often; Can you elaborate on why you think there is a lot of wrong with the OP, I'd like to make sure I understand all views here as I am looking to buy multiple cans.
So from someone that has been registered for years, lurking longer, and hasnt felt like chiming in often; Can you elaborate on why you think there is a lot of wrong with the OP, I'd like to make sure I understand all views here as I am looking to buy multiple cans.
Re: Threaded vs. quick detach suppressor?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dregsofsociety</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I know this has been mentioned, but it bears repeating. When you fire rounds through a can it heats up, so much that unless you have protective gloves, you won't be able to take it off without burning your hands. This being said, there is no use for a quick detach silencer. When setting up a olt action of semi auto, it should not make a difference either. A QD qill "grind" down over time (and for some it may take longer than others) but a thread on will last as long as the barrel. The OPS Inc can will thread on without the ability to cross thread as quick as any QD silencer, but will not shift as long as you have the product and will last you longer than any ohters. If you get the 12th model, you can fire without the silencer and still have the benefit of a brake, don't know why you'd take it off, but it's your choice. As far as any operations go, if you ask any "operator" they will always have the can on the rifle unless air dropping to decrease added length. There is no need for QD unless you want the new trendy can that you will eventually trade in for something more reliable. Good luck with the QD, for any future purchases I hope you see the difference. </div></div>
Ummmm NO.
Not sure about you but I dont know anyone that is into suppressors that trades them off.... that is expensive and time consuming.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dregsofsociety</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I know this has been mentioned, but it bears repeating. When you fire rounds through a can it heats up, so much that unless you have protective gloves, you won't be able to take it off without burning your hands. This being said, there is no use for a quick detach silencer. When setting up a olt action of semi auto, it should not make a difference either. A QD qill "grind" down over time (and for some it may take longer than others) but a thread on will last as long as the barrel. The OPS Inc can will thread on without the ability to cross thread as quick as any QD silencer, but will not shift as long as you have the product and will last you longer than any ohters. If you get the 12th model, you can fire without the silencer and still have the benefit of a brake, don't know why you'd take it off, but it's your choice. As far as any operations go, if you ask any "operator" they will always have the can on the rifle unless air dropping to decrease added length. There is no need for QD unless you want the new trendy can that you will eventually trade in for something more reliable. Good luck with the QD, for any future purchases I hope you see the difference. </div></div>
Ummmm NO.
Not sure about you but I dont know anyone that is into suppressors that trades them off.... that is expensive and time consuming.
Re: Threaded vs. quick detach suppressor?
This is a pretty good thread. I like the input, much of which is biased by the type of can is owned by each poster. I always like to read the input of the buying public. As a member of several forums who pays particular attention to all things suppressor, I see a different trend here.
On SH I see a lot of technical guys who know their stuff about precision shooting. I learn a lot here. Most of the guys seem to take precision shooting very personal as they have a love for it. Those are the people who I want to read what they have to say.
I love shooting long distance. Am I any good at it? Probably not, but I like to do it. That being stated, I am more of a carbine and pistol guy. I was just a regular ground-pounding grunt and I love carbines, pistols, and machine guns. Most of the rigs that I shoot a lot are SBRs or some type of carbine set-up for zombie fighting.
I have noticed that there are several types of guys who want to get into the NFA game with suppressors.
1. Precision guys like the guys here. They want to drill a gnat's ass at a grand and do it all day long. They want thread-on cans (for the most part). Some will do the "TOMB" style and few will go QD/FA (yes, I know that there is no such thing as QD with a hot can).
2. Tactical mall ninjas (That is where most of my gear falls in). I am one of those when zombies attack and America implodes guys. I have an excessive stash of goods. These guys (3 gunners included) want QD/FA. They want AAC and SF. These are the brand guys. There are a few companies that have really built up their brand to be more than just suppressors; they are tactical cool guy gear companies. These guys make great products. They did not get where they are by making shit for products and having a cool t-shirt.
Personally, I carry an SBR as my primary on-the-go truck gun. A pistol is a poor excuse for a defense gun. I have a can in my truck, but it is not on my rifle. In a bad situation I would not put it on. When I am out driving around culling hogs and I spot a big group, I slap the can on. The can is an N6 and the caliber is .300blk.
3. Guys who buy what their dealer tells them to buy. These are the guys who have shot their friends rigs and decided that they want a can. They don't take the time to research. They go to the local shop and buy the gear that the dealer pushes. These days it seems to be QD/FA cans.
It is easier to deal with a customer who knows what they want and why they want it. QD, thread-on, TOMB, whatever. They all have their strong points and they all have their weak points. Buy the gear that bests suits the individual shooter and the shooter's needs. That is all.
This is a pretty good thread. I like the input, much of which is biased by the type of can is owned by each poster. I always like to read the input of the buying public. As a member of several forums who pays particular attention to all things suppressor, I see a different trend here.
On SH I see a lot of technical guys who know their stuff about precision shooting. I learn a lot here. Most of the guys seem to take precision shooting very personal as they have a love for it. Those are the people who I want to read what they have to say.
I love shooting long distance. Am I any good at it? Probably not, but I like to do it. That being stated, I am more of a carbine and pistol guy. I was just a regular ground-pounding grunt and I love carbines, pistols, and machine guns. Most of the rigs that I shoot a lot are SBRs or some type of carbine set-up for zombie fighting.
I have noticed that there are several types of guys who want to get into the NFA game with suppressors.
1. Precision guys like the guys here. They want to drill a gnat's ass at a grand and do it all day long. They want thread-on cans (for the most part). Some will do the "TOMB" style and few will go QD/FA (yes, I know that there is no such thing as QD with a hot can).
2. Tactical mall ninjas (That is where most of my gear falls in). I am one of those when zombies attack and America implodes guys. I have an excessive stash of goods. These guys (3 gunners included) want QD/FA. They want AAC and SF. These are the brand guys. There are a few companies that have really built up their brand to be more than just suppressors; they are tactical cool guy gear companies. These guys make great products. They did not get where they are by making shit for products and having a cool t-shirt.
Personally, I carry an SBR as my primary on-the-go truck gun. A pistol is a poor excuse for a defense gun. I have a can in my truck, but it is not on my rifle. In a bad situation I would not put it on. When I am out driving around culling hogs and I spot a big group, I slap the can on. The can is an N6 and the caliber is .300blk.
3. Guys who buy what their dealer tells them to buy. These are the guys who have shot their friends rigs and decided that they want a can. They don't take the time to research. They go to the local shop and buy the gear that the dealer pushes. These days it seems to be QD/FA cans.
It is easier to deal with a customer who knows what they want and why they want it. QD, thread-on, TOMB, whatever. They all have their strong points and they all have their weak points. Buy the gear that bests suits the individual shooter and the shooter's needs. That is all.
Re: Threaded vs. quick detach suppressor?
You may be right, but I prefer to think of it as buying a suppressor to fit your need. I'd fit into both categories 1 and 2. For my .308 can, I use a TOMB mount for consistency. For my AR, I use a QA mount for the lock.
And yes, I do push my brand, although it's not necessarily brand loyalty. Both my SAS TI .308 can and my Liberty rimfire can came off prize tables, so I go out of my way to let others know that they support shooters. It doesn't hurt that they both make great cans for a good price, and Tim and David are great guys.
You may be right, but I prefer to think of it as buying a suppressor to fit your need. I'd fit into both categories 1 and 2. For my .308 can, I use a TOMB mount for consistency. For my AR, I use a QA mount for the lock.
And yes, I do push my brand, although it's not necessarily brand loyalty. Both my SAS TI .308 can and my Liberty rimfire can came off prize tables, so I go out of my way to let others know that they support shooters. It doesn't hurt that they both make great cans for a good price, and Tim and David are great guys.
Re: Threaded vs. quick detach suppressor?
I'm not sure what catagory I fit in, but after looking at various .30 cal. suppressors for at least 3 months, I went with the Yankee Hill 7.62 QD and couldn't be happier. I was going to go with Gemtech, mainly because they are in my "back yard", but after talking with some who owned them and checking them out, I didn't see the benefit of the added cost over the YH. I looked and tried AAC, AWC, HTG and the Gemtech's. I read all the reviews I could find and when it came down to it, the YH seemed like the most cost effective sollution, as I didn't see any major differences between them and in some cases thought the YH was built better than the others I looked at and tested.
Like I said, I am happy with my purchase. The suppressor is tough, as I've accidently dropped it on concrete a couple of times and all it did was scuff the surface. I have used it on a GA Precision built .308 and it actually improved my groups on an already spectacular shooting rifle. I've fire rounds out to 1400 yards through this rifle/suppressor combo with great accuracy results. I've also used it on an AR-15 (.223) and a RRA LAR-8 (.308) both of which I worked that suppressor hard in matches where I've fired up to 300 or more rounds withing a 20 minute time frame. It did make the rifles very forward heavy on both of those rifles.
I am able to fire my bolt gun without any hearing protection. I'm sure there are quieter suppressors, but you'll probably need a machine to tell.
Oh yea, I can install and remove the suppressor with a suppressor cover on, since it 'threads' onto the mounts, instead of using a button or whatever.
I am seriously considering getting one of the new titanium suppressors from YH, because I am happy with this one.
So after all this, I still don't know what category I fall into. I'm not 'brand loyal' to YH, and am currently considering another brand for a .22 and .338 suppressor purchase, but I wouldn't hesitate to recomend YH to anyone.
I'm not sure what catagory I fit in, but after looking at various .30 cal. suppressors for at least 3 months, I went with the Yankee Hill 7.62 QD and couldn't be happier. I was going to go with Gemtech, mainly because they are in my "back yard", but after talking with some who owned them and checking them out, I didn't see the benefit of the added cost over the YH. I looked and tried AAC, AWC, HTG and the Gemtech's. I read all the reviews I could find and when it came down to it, the YH seemed like the most cost effective sollution, as I didn't see any major differences between them and in some cases thought the YH was built better than the others I looked at and tested.
Like I said, I am happy with my purchase. The suppressor is tough, as I've accidently dropped it on concrete a couple of times and all it did was scuff the surface. I have used it on a GA Precision built .308 and it actually improved my groups on an already spectacular shooting rifle. I've fire rounds out to 1400 yards through this rifle/suppressor combo with great accuracy results. I've also used it on an AR-15 (.223) and a RRA LAR-8 (.308) both of which I worked that suppressor hard in matches where I've fired up to 300 or more rounds withing a 20 minute time frame. It did make the rifles very forward heavy on both of those rifles.
I am able to fire my bolt gun without any hearing protection. I'm sure there are quieter suppressors, but you'll probably need a machine to tell.
Oh yea, I can install and remove the suppressor with a suppressor cover on, since it 'threads' onto the mounts, instead of using a button or whatever.
I am seriously considering getting one of the new titanium suppressors from YH, because I am happy with this one.
So after all this, I still don't know what category I fall into. I'm not 'brand loyal' to YH, and am currently considering another brand for a .22 and .338 suppressor purchase, but I wouldn't hesitate to recomend YH to anyone.
Re: Threaded vs. quick detach suppressor?
I am purchasing the 30BA from ThunderBeast. Reasons are as follows:
1) I intend on using this can on a .308 and .223 which makes it very easy to remove and install from gun to gun.
2) Threading on and off the can from the break is solid, just like treading it on and off the barrel. I will never need to worry about screwing up the treads on the end of my barrel as the threads will always be protected. IF I screw up the treads on the break, worst case I just need to get another break and my barrel does not need to be retreaded.
3) The threads and the crown on my barrels are always protected and now I have a break as well. When I go hunting and remove my can, no need to reinstall anything.
4) I do not know if this is as big of an issue or not but when you tighten and loosen items from the end of your barrel, if you tighten them to much, you can actually stretch the end of your barrel. Never heard of anyone doing this but it stands to reason.
I am purchasing the 30BA from ThunderBeast. Reasons are as follows:
1) I intend on using this can on a .308 and .223 which makes it very easy to remove and install from gun to gun.
2) Threading on and off the can from the break is solid, just like treading it on and off the barrel. I will never need to worry about screwing up the treads on the end of my barrel as the threads will always be protected. IF I screw up the treads on the break, worst case I just need to get another break and my barrel does not need to be retreaded.
3) The threads and the crown on my barrels are always protected and now I have a break as well. When I go hunting and remove my can, no need to reinstall anything.
4) I do not know if this is as big of an issue or not but when you tighten and loosen items from the end of your barrel, if you tighten them to much, you can actually stretch the end of your barrel. Never heard of anyone doing this but it stands to reason.
Re: Threaded vs. quick detach suppressor?
I know you will be pleased with the 30BA. I've been running the prototype on my 260 and 308 with awesome results. It's as accurate and repeatable as the 30P-1.
I removed mine from my 260 multiple times during this years Steel Safari match just to prove how repeatable it was. I look forward to a range report
I know you will be pleased with the 30BA. I've been running the prototype on my 260 and 308 with awesome results. It's as accurate and repeatable as the 30P-1.
I removed mine from my 260 multiple times during this years Steel Safari match just to prove how repeatable it was. I look forward to a range report
Re: Threaded vs. quick detach suppressor?
I have quickly moved from the ratchet to the thread on camp. No question it is the more accurate method for a bolt gun.Even for a SA, just leave the suppressor on all time...unless you are hunting I guess.
I have quickly moved from the ratchet to the thread on camp. No question it is the more accurate method for a bolt gun.Even for a SA, just leave the suppressor on all time...unless you are hunting I guess.
Re: Threaded vs. quick detach suppressor?
Do the thread on cans loosen up throughout the day??
Do the thread on cans loosen up throughout the day??
Re: Threaded vs. quick detach suppressor?
Being a class 7 man. we entertained the QD stuff but like so many others have mentioned once they are hot what purpose does the QD serve except to increase the chances of a baffle strike should the can come loose.
The only positive I can see is the ability to "share" your .30 cal can on other weapons of the same or sub caliber just by buying the correctly threaded QD adapter.
Threaded all the way for me.
Being a class 7 man. we entertained the QD stuff but like so many others have mentioned once they are hot what purpose does the QD serve except to increase the chances of a baffle strike should the can come loose.
The only positive I can see is the ability to "share" your .30 cal can on other weapons of the same or sub caliber just by buying the correctly threaded QD adapter.
Threaded all the way for me.
Re: Threaded vs. quick detach suppressor?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: AMMOWASTER</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do the thread on cans loosen up throughout the day??</div></div>
This is also what I would like to know. Can anyone comment on this, specifically the TBAC 30P-1?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: AMMOWASTER</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do the thread on cans loosen up throughout the day??</div></div>
This is also what I would like to know. Can anyone comment on this, specifically the TBAC 30P-1?
Re: Threaded vs. quick detach suppressor?
I have been working with the thread on, muzzle brake and QD design cans for years and honestly they all have pro's and con's. Some of the items/points I cover with customers on the attachment method:
1. DC models limit you due to the obvious 1/2x28 .22 barrel, 5/8x24 on most .30 barrels and so on.
2. Muzzle Brake attachment (TOMB) for the SAS series means you can install a muzzle brake with required thread pattern on the host weapon and simply install the suppressor over each. With this setup, you basically have a DC design only with a slight better DB reduction and more versatility but it still threads directly onto essentially a barrel extension.
3. The SAS QD model allows again for multiple host weapons and a simple muzzle brake attachment method, more so intended as a Quick Attach vs Detach. However, once a can gets hot you are not just going to take it off without issues due to heat or material expansion which makes them tighter or whatever. The best thing about the SAS QD it is a counter clock wise tensioning design which does not loosen up with rounds fired, actually remains tensioned.
There are many designs on the market today from many manufactures. I would recommend you decide on what host weapons you want to work with, determine a thread pattern for each or universal setup, attachment method and then the can will be basically easier to determined with these requirements. One other item of concern will be the material of the suppressor, SS or TI, which will determine weight and cost directly. If you need assistance I am always available or will get to you asap. Happy holiday seasons to all.
I have been working with the thread on, muzzle brake and QD design cans for years and honestly they all have pro's and con's. Some of the items/points I cover with customers on the attachment method:
1. DC models limit you due to the obvious 1/2x28 .22 barrel, 5/8x24 on most .30 barrels and so on.
2. Muzzle Brake attachment (TOMB) for the SAS series means you can install a muzzle brake with required thread pattern on the host weapon and simply install the suppressor over each. With this setup, you basically have a DC design only with a slight better DB reduction and more versatility but it still threads directly onto essentially a barrel extension.
3. The SAS QD model allows again for multiple host weapons and a simple muzzle brake attachment method, more so intended as a Quick Attach vs Detach. However, once a can gets hot you are not just going to take it off without issues due to heat or material expansion which makes them tighter or whatever. The best thing about the SAS QD it is a counter clock wise tensioning design which does not loosen up with rounds fired, actually remains tensioned.
There are many designs on the market today from many manufactures. I would recommend you decide on what host weapons you want to work with, determine a thread pattern for each or universal setup, attachment method and then the can will be basically easier to determined with these requirements. One other item of concern will be the material of the suppressor, SS or TI, which will determine weight and cost directly. If you need assistance I am always available or will get to you asap. Happy holiday seasons to all.
Re: Threaded vs. quick detach suppressor?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: AMMOWASTER</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do the thread on cans loosen up throughout the day?? </div></div>
I purchased a thread on YHM for my .308 early this year. I've put a few hundred rounds through it and per YHM's recommendation, I check it every so often while shooting to make sure it's still tight, but I haven't had it loosen up on me yet. It'll be put to more of a test when I go to a training course next month.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: AMMOWASTER</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do the thread on cans loosen up throughout the day?? </div></div>
I purchased a thread on YHM for my .308 early this year. I've put a few hundred rounds through it and per YHM's recommendation, I check it every so often while shooting to make sure it's still tight, but I haven't had it loosen up on me yet. It'll be put to more of a test when I go to a training course next month.
Re: Threaded vs. quick detach suppressor?
I'm a little confused... Why is the QD considered any faster or better for applications when you move the can often? If you hand tighten suppressors, wouldn't it be just as easy and just as fast to move it from one rifle to another? I cant imagine it taking any more than 15 seconds more unscrewing tham pressing a button. Am I missin something? Is it really and to be screwing and unscrewing constantly?
I'm a little confused... Why is the QD considered any faster or better for applications when you move the can often? If you hand tighten suppressors, wouldn't it be just as easy and just as fast to move it from one rifle to another? I cant imagine it taking any more than 15 seconds more unscrewing tham pressing a button. Am I missin something? Is it really and to be screwing and unscrewing constantly?
Re: Threaded vs. quick detach suppressor?
Fair enough question..
QD started a long time ago, literally 40 years. At that time, the reasons were very narrowly defined. Sub gun centric, covert centric, speed focused. The idea was that operators would be confronted with the requirement to secrete the weapon on their person and then (with much larger cans), arrive at destination, and then with little time, assemble and fire. The key driver was simplifying the threading to as coarse a thread as possible, while still allowing for enough surface contract with thread & shoulder to "bind." We see early examples of this out of Ingram's work, primarily for Werbell. A majority of these early units were fast, safe and, if properly managed, as secure as needed.
When we look at those early QD's we see three important things:
1. The fact that they look astonishingly similar to today's offerings.
2. The fact that they had no active locking system.
3. And, perhaps most importantly (and the answer to timelinex's question), there was no requirement for a brake.
We see this:
With the introduction of the H&K tri-lug we see the next popular iteration, but still subguns, covert, speed centric. H&K provided the three lugged brake as well...and the seeds were sown. But still, importantly, accuracy requirements were not paramount as subguns were seen as short range weapons.
It would all change because of #3, brakes. Its the requirement that came about with the unscrewing of a brake <span style="font-style: italic">prior</span> to the mounting of a can that created the reason for some to return to the bench and design the QD as we know it today. Times were now doubled+ (screw off, store the brake safely, screw the can on - as compared to screw the can on).
Lots more here, and we read about it all the time on these threads. Precision vs assault rifles, gas leak, POI, etc., etc., etc. But, in the end, look to the requirement for a brake, post detach, as the cause of the new QD demand and debate.
Fair enough question..
QD started a long time ago, literally 40 years. At that time, the reasons were very narrowly defined. Sub gun centric, covert centric, speed focused. The idea was that operators would be confronted with the requirement to secrete the weapon on their person and then (with much larger cans), arrive at destination, and then with little time, assemble and fire. The key driver was simplifying the threading to as coarse a thread as possible, while still allowing for enough surface contract with thread & shoulder to "bind." We see early examples of this out of Ingram's work, primarily for Werbell. A majority of these early units were fast, safe and, if properly managed, as secure as needed.
When we look at those early QD's we see three important things:
1. The fact that they look astonishingly similar to today's offerings.
2. The fact that they had no active locking system.
3. And, perhaps most importantly (and the answer to timelinex's question), there was no requirement for a brake.
We see this:
With the introduction of the H&K tri-lug we see the next popular iteration, but still subguns, covert, speed centric. H&K provided the three lugged brake as well...and the seeds were sown. But still, importantly, accuracy requirements were not paramount as subguns were seen as short range weapons.
It would all change because of #3, brakes. Its the requirement that came about with the unscrewing of a brake <span style="font-style: italic">prior</span> to the mounting of a can that created the reason for some to return to the bench and design the QD as we know it today. Times were now doubled+ (screw off, store the brake safely, screw the can on - as compared to screw the can on).
Lots more here, and we read about it all the time on these threads. Precision vs assault rifles, gas leak, POI, etc., etc., etc. But, in the end, look to the requirement for a brake, post detach, as the cause of the new QD demand and debate.
Re: Threaded vs. quick detach suppressor?
The Ingram system was too coarse- there was no locking system either. It didn't work properly and required people to hold their suppressors while shooting to keep them tight. That is dangerous for many reasons.
What many of the systems do is provide a rapid attachment at the expense of rigid mounting. That's why QD systems have a negative image.
A good QD system will reduce the likelyhood of inadvertent loosening and that is why most of the military issued suppressors are QD. They don't want a guy half way through his first magazine and suddenly not able to hit the target because his now too hot to touch can is loose and the bullets are touching the baffles.
The QD system allows the operator to mount a device properly that guarantees alignment is good and secure mounting is certain.
They cost money, but they do work, and not all of them have negative operating characteristics.
Ops is a good example- the separation distance of the thread and tapered collar attacks the root cause of inadvertent loosening- that is vibration. Vibration makes threads loosen. The taper 2" away from the thread takes vibration out of the mount- so it can't loosen on it's own. Unlike a lock washer which can reduce alignment accuracy- that taper facilitates perfect alignment.
The Ingram system was too coarse- there was no locking system either. It didn't work properly and required people to hold their suppressors while shooting to keep them tight. That is dangerous for many reasons.
What many of the systems do is provide a rapid attachment at the expense of rigid mounting. That's why QD systems have a negative image.
A good QD system will reduce the likelyhood of inadvertent loosening and that is why most of the military issued suppressors are QD. They don't want a guy half way through his first magazine and suddenly not able to hit the target because his now too hot to touch can is loose and the bullets are touching the baffles.
The QD system allows the operator to mount a device properly that guarantees alignment is good and secure mounting is certain.
They cost money, but they do work, and not all of them have negative operating characteristics.
Ops is a good example- the separation distance of the thread and tapered collar attacks the root cause of inadvertent loosening- that is vibration. Vibration makes threads loosen. The taper 2" away from the thread takes vibration out of the mount- so it can't loosen on it's own. Unlike a lock washer which can reduce alignment accuracy- that taper facilitates perfect alignment.
Re: Threaded vs. quick detach suppressor?
The Ingram system worked just fine. He recognized early that is was not the threads, but the shoulder that was important for that round. Those were different days, people tended their cans and the Ingram required very little tending. One should not confuse the holding of the can (or strap, or extension) to combat the obvious effects of open bolt reciprocation with anything having to do with keeping the can on. It simply was not the case.
No properly prepared, provided and mounted modern single point suppressor loosens, in many instances, just the opposite, they lock on. Some to the point of needing a flat strap. In FA, for every can that was very rarely returned for a loose strike, a few more are returned for backed on to the point where concern was raised about its removal. IMO, that which drove/drives QD is something all together different and I tried to touch on the roots of it above.
As to reflex, by far, the largest number of barrels replaced based on suppressor interaction are/were reflex designs. Early ones with their core less envelope created pitting and rust. Later ones with heat, muzzle erosion, stringing and general fatigue. They did have advantageous, now long surpassed by lighter weights, shorter OAL, high suppression, less profile requirement and a host of other reasons. Nothing against reflex that isn't obvious.
I'm going to step away from this thread now, for fear of the mindless vortex that is "to QD or not QD." To each their own.
The Ingram system worked just fine. He recognized early that is was not the threads, but the shoulder that was important for that round. Those were different days, people tended their cans and the Ingram required very little tending. One should not confuse the holding of the can (or strap, or extension) to combat the obvious effects of open bolt reciprocation with anything having to do with keeping the can on. It simply was not the case.
No properly prepared, provided and mounted modern single point suppressor loosens, in many instances, just the opposite, they lock on. Some to the point of needing a flat strap. In FA, for every can that was very rarely returned for a loose strike, a few more are returned for backed on to the point where concern was raised about its removal. IMO, that which drove/drives QD is something all together different and I tried to touch on the roots of it above.
As to reflex, by far, the largest number of barrels replaced based on suppressor interaction are/were reflex designs. Early ones with their core less envelope created pitting and rust. Later ones with heat, muzzle erosion, stringing and general fatigue. They did have advantageous, now long surpassed by lighter weights, shorter OAL, high suppression, less profile requirement and a host of other reasons. Nothing against reflex that isn't obvious.
I'm going to step away from this thread now, for fear of the mindless vortex that is "to QD or not QD." To each their own.
Re: Threaded vs. quick detach suppressor?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RollingThunder51</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Ingram system worked just fine. He recognized early that is was not the threads, but the shoulder that was important for that round. Those were different days, people tended their cans and the Ingram required very little tending. One should not confuse the holding of the can (or strap, or extension) to combat the obvious effects of open bolt reciprocation with anything having to do with keeping the can on. It simply was not the case. </div></div>
And I quote P46: Small Arms Review VOL 14, NO 11 August 2011 article, "John P. Foote Firearms Designer"
"The Foote-Ingram M11A2 was a .380 caliber pistol that was 20 percent smaller in size than the production MAC M11. The barrel threads were much finer than those on production MACs to prevent the suppressor from loosening during firing."
Al Paulson further mentioned this issue numerous times in his books and articles.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RollingThunder51</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
No properly prepared, provided and mounted modern single point suppressor loosens, in many instances, just the opposite, they lock on. Some to the point of needing a flat strap. In FA, for every can that was very rarely returned for a loose strike, a few more are returned for backed on to the point where concern was raised about its removal.</div></div>
<span style="font-weight: bold">Sounds really convenient... May require custom fitted threads, and the other percentage of issues are cans that break loose and may get shot up. </span>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RollingThunder51</div><div class="ubbcode-body">IMO, that which drove/drives QD is something all together different and I tried to touch on the roots of it above. </div></div>
The James Bond senario- I read that and understand it played a part with airborne MAC V SOG operators (based on needs to field suppressed weapons and desire not to operate with a sub-caliber primary weapon).
The Military currently arms special troops with special weapons so at times it is necessary for them to remove sound suppressors in the interest of operational security. It is Sniper doctrine to attempt as much as possible to look like ordinary infantry when visible such as accompanying a patrol to be dropped into a hide or OP.
In Afghanistan snipers have been known to target soldier trainers [read as SF soldiers], so it may be useful for a soldier again to keep a lower profile, and this need may present itself rapidly as situations develop.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RollingThunder51</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As to reflex, by far, the largest number of barrels replaced based on suppressor interaction are/were reflex designs. Early ones with their core less envelope created pitting and rust. Later ones with heat, muzzle erosion, stringing and general fatigue. They did have advantageous, now long surpassed by lighter weights, shorter OAL, high suppression, less profile requirement and a host of other reasons. Nothing against reflex that isn't obvious.
</div></div>
That's good fiction. And the barrels that are required to be most accurate, and often which are used to considerably higher round counts than average for standard Infantry rifles- the M24A2 sniper weapon system, the MK11 Mod 0, the M110 Semi Auto Sniper System, the MK12 Special Purpose Rifle- all fast attach reflex designs/weapons systems designed by:
Remington/Ops Inc, (Fielded to US Army / US Army SF)
Knights Armament, (Fielded to US Navy SEALS, US Army SF, various government agencies/ M110 also Fielded to US Army and USMC)
Naval Surface Warfare Center Crane/Ops Inc... (Fielded to US Army SF, USMC, US Navy Seals, among very probably others.)
The Marine Corps has recently fielded many over the barrel Surefire suppressors with M40 based systems.
These multiple sniper platforms selected for military use, they all reinforce your conclusions handily.
Though probably the least optimally engineered- Sionics suppressors were successfully fielded in Vietnam with the M21 automatic sniper weapon system.
The Vietnam M16A1 Suppressor testing by the military showed the best resultant suppressor to be the HEL-E4A suppressor which was also an over the barrel suppressor. The HEL-E4A was the most widely distributed and used M16 suppressor of the war.
The Navy MK-II blast suppressor - precursor to the M4QD from KAC was also an over the barrel suppressor.
So the successful US Military history of reflex (and more recent history Fast attach reflex) suppressors is quite extensive-
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RollingThunder51</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Ingram system worked just fine. He recognized early that is was not the threads, but the shoulder that was important for that round. Those were different days, people tended their cans and the Ingram required very little tending. One should not confuse the holding of the can (or strap, or extension) to combat the obvious effects of open bolt reciprocation with anything having to do with keeping the can on. It simply was not the case. </div></div>
And I quote P46: Small Arms Review VOL 14, NO 11 August 2011 article, "John P. Foote Firearms Designer"
"The Foote-Ingram M11A2 was a .380 caliber pistol that was 20 percent smaller in size than the production MAC M11. The barrel threads were much finer than those on production MACs to prevent the suppressor from loosening during firing."
Al Paulson further mentioned this issue numerous times in his books and articles.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RollingThunder51</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
No properly prepared, provided and mounted modern single point suppressor loosens, in many instances, just the opposite, they lock on. Some to the point of needing a flat strap. In FA, for every can that was very rarely returned for a loose strike, a few more are returned for backed on to the point where concern was raised about its removal.</div></div>
<span style="font-weight: bold">Sounds really convenient... May require custom fitted threads, and the other percentage of issues are cans that break loose and may get shot up. </span>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RollingThunder51</div><div class="ubbcode-body">IMO, that which drove/drives QD is something all together different and I tried to touch on the roots of it above. </div></div>
The James Bond senario- I read that and understand it played a part with airborne MAC V SOG operators (based on needs to field suppressed weapons and desire not to operate with a sub-caliber primary weapon).
The Military currently arms special troops with special weapons so at times it is necessary for them to remove sound suppressors in the interest of operational security. It is Sniper doctrine to attempt as much as possible to look like ordinary infantry when visible such as accompanying a patrol to be dropped into a hide or OP.
In Afghanistan snipers have been known to target soldier trainers [read as SF soldiers], so it may be useful for a soldier again to keep a lower profile, and this need may present itself rapidly as situations develop.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RollingThunder51</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As to reflex, by far, the largest number of barrels replaced based on suppressor interaction are/were reflex designs. Early ones with their core less envelope created pitting and rust. Later ones with heat, muzzle erosion, stringing and general fatigue. They did have advantageous, now long surpassed by lighter weights, shorter OAL, high suppression, less profile requirement and a host of other reasons. Nothing against reflex that isn't obvious.
</div></div>
That's good fiction. And the barrels that are required to be most accurate, and often which are used to considerably higher round counts than average for standard Infantry rifles- the M24A2 sniper weapon system, the MK11 Mod 0, the M110 Semi Auto Sniper System, the MK12 Special Purpose Rifle- all fast attach reflex designs/weapons systems designed by:
Remington/Ops Inc, (Fielded to US Army / US Army SF)
Knights Armament, (Fielded to US Navy SEALS, US Army SF, various government agencies/ M110 also Fielded to US Army and USMC)
Naval Surface Warfare Center Crane/Ops Inc... (Fielded to US Army SF, USMC, US Navy Seals, among very probably others.)
The Marine Corps has recently fielded many over the barrel Surefire suppressors with M40 based systems.
These multiple sniper platforms selected for military use, they all reinforce your conclusions handily.
Though probably the least optimally engineered- Sionics suppressors were successfully fielded in Vietnam with the M21 automatic sniper weapon system.
The Vietnam M16A1 Suppressor testing by the military showed the best resultant suppressor to be the HEL-E4A suppressor which was also an over the barrel suppressor. The HEL-E4A was the most widely distributed and used M16 suppressor of the war.
The Navy MK-II blast suppressor - precursor to the M4QD from KAC was also an over the barrel suppressor.
So the successful US Military history of reflex (and more recent history Fast attach reflex) suppressors is quite extensive-
Re: Threaded vs. quick detach suppressor?
A bit of cross over from the other recent discussion on the merits of back over the barrel suppressors.
The development of front mounting suppressors to the point they are right now, has in my opinion greatly reduced the need for back over the barrel suppressors.
Sure, in the Vietnam era and the following decades, they made sense since there were no better alternatives and your references to more recent suppressors show that they have been / are still used.
However why would one use a larger, longer and heavier suppressor when the same performance can be achieved with a more smaller, lighter and more flexible suppressor?
( flexible for example regards to mounting on short barrels where there is not much or no space to go rearward )
Regards!
Tuukka Jokinen
Ase Utra sound suppressors
A bit of cross over from the other recent discussion on the merits of back over the barrel suppressors.
The development of front mounting suppressors to the point they are right now, has in my opinion greatly reduced the need for back over the barrel suppressors.
Sure, in the Vietnam era and the following decades, they made sense since there were no better alternatives and your references to more recent suppressors show that they have been / are still used.
However why would one use a larger, longer and heavier suppressor when the same performance can be achieved with a more smaller, lighter and more flexible suppressor?
( flexible for example regards to mounting on short barrels where there is not much or no space to go rearward )
Regards!
Tuukka Jokinen
Ase Utra sound suppressors
Re: Threaded vs. quick detach suppressor?
Got to admit....I am actually beginning to look forward to your returns Griff! Smile when you say that Mister.
Own the Ingram for 30+ years and report back. Countless rounds through the can, no issue with unwind...zero. Many learned how to maintain a can with Sionics. Lastly, you misunderstand that article, the idea was platform specific, having to do with total thread surface area and shoulder size. Think of it as a scaling issue. The .380 is quite small. Do you honestly think that MAC would not have changed the pitch of their threads if they thought the 10/11 was dangerous? We don't judge single point by Sionics. The point, seemingly missed was, on #3 the lack of a brake. The brake...the brake....brake. Lets move on.
As I said, nothing wrong with over the barrel that isn't already obvious. 10x cans delivered as single point. The over the barrel period has come and gone for a whole host of reasons. Few having to do with the QD vs thread, the focus of this thread. Few make over the barrel now and there are a host a excellent reasons why. Almost all that did, walked away, some of those started before Ops. Exceptions made today? Sure. Meaningful numbers? No.
Honestly Griff, don't start with HEL series, one would not want to confuse dead air, sealed off, aligning rear support with active reflectives. The issue was many fold, much of it having to do with the barrel profile, threads and shoulders of the period. It wasn't until the MAW-A1 that gas bled back, and only for purge pressure. More importantly, as quickly as possible things migrated to single point on that very same host.
Always interesting. Happy Thanksgiving! Bond...over and out.
Later that day, down at Werbell's farm....
Got to admit....I am actually beginning to look forward to your returns Griff! Smile when you say that Mister.
Own the Ingram for 30+ years and report back. Countless rounds through the can, no issue with unwind...zero. Many learned how to maintain a can with Sionics. Lastly, you misunderstand that article, the idea was platform specific, having to do with total thread surface area and shoulder size. Think of it as a scaling issue. The .380 is quite small. Do you honestly think that MAC would not have changed the pitch of their threads if they thought the 10/11 was dangerous? We don't judge single point by Sionics. The point, seemingly missed was, on #3 the lack of a brake. The brake...the brake....brake. Lets move on.
As I said, nothing wrong with over the barrel that isn't already obvious. 10x cans delivered as single point. The over the barrel period has come and gone for a whole host of reasons. Few having to do with the QD vs thread, the focus of this thread. Few make over the barrel now and there are a host a excellent reasons why. Almost all that did, walked away, some of those started before Ops. Exceptions made today? Sure. Meaningful numbers? No.
Honestly Griff, don't start with HEL series, one would not want to confuse dead air, sealed off, aligning rear support with active reflectives. The issue was many fold, much of it having to do with the barrel profile, threads and shoulders of the period. It wasn't until the MAW-A1 that gas bled back, and only for purge pressure. More importantly, as quickly as possible things migrated to single point on that very same host.
Always interesting. Happy Thanksgiving! Bond...over and out.
Later that day, down at Werbell's farm....
Re: Threaded vs. quick detach suppressor?
I didn't miss-understand the article, or Al Paulsons remarks in his books and articles.
M4- carbine thread Styer Aug reports:
"I'm a SOT so I don't pay a per item tax. The wrench flats is actually a good idea. One trick I've learned is the put the can in a vice (secured by a couple soft wood boards) and give the rifle an extra 1/4 turn.
We'd actually get cans to stay put on MACs that way, and they are the worst at staying tight that I've ever seen."
GarretJ reports MAC's LOOSEN EASILY!!!
"The biggest issue with MAC cans is the coarse threads used on the MAC barrels. They are easy to get on, and nearly impossible to cross-thread. However, they loosen easily and when they loosen the least amount, the can becomes misaligned. Here's what my last baffle and end cap looked like before I had the guts upgraded. They've been hit multiple times. I suppose I'm lucky I didn't launch the endcap downrange. "
Gemtech designed a product just to solve the Mac suppressor unthreadeing problem
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RollingThunder51</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do you honestly think that MAC would not have changed the pitch of their threads if they thought the 10/11 was dangerous?</div></div>
No I don't. They were trying to keep attachment fast- they thought it was acceptable to hold onto a suppressor as bullets fly through the center of the device.
I've seen a post where a Mac user shot his own hand because his can suffered a baffle strike while holding the suppressor tube. No I don't think holding the suppressor to keep it on makes it a safe system.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RollingThunder51</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As I said, nothing wrong with over the barrel that isn't already obvious. 10x cans delivered as single point.</div></div>
They are more simple to make properly, and more cheaply manufactured. That's going to be up there with the best reasons for thread mount suppressors.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RollingThunder51</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The over the barrel period has come and gone for a whole host of reasons. </div></div>
And yet still remains in modern use on the military's most recently acquired semi-automatic sniper system.
I didn't miss-understand the article, or Al Paulsons remarks in his books and articles.
M4- carbine thread Styer Aug reports:
"I'm a SOT so I don't pay a per item tax. The wrench flats is actually a good idea. One trick I've learned is the put the can in a vice (secured by a couple soft wood boards) and give the rifle an extra 1/4 turn.
We'd actually get cans to stay put on MACs that way, and they are the worst at staying tight that I've ever seen."
GarretJ reports MAC's LOOSEN EASILY!!!
"The biggest issue with MAC cans is the coarse threads used on the MAC barrels. They are easy to get on, and nearly impossible to cross-thread. However, they loosen easily and when they loosen the least amount, the can becomes misaligned. Here's what my last baffle and end cap looked like before I had the guts upgraded. They've been hit multiple times. I suppose I'm lucky I didn't launch the endcap downrange. "
Gemtech designed a product just to solve the Mac suppressor unthreadeing problem
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RollingThunder51</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do you honestly think that MAC would not have changed the pitch of their threads if they thought the 10/11 was dangerous?</div></div>
No I don't. They were trying to keep attachment fast- they thought it was acceptable to hold onto a suppressor as bullets fly through the center of the device.
I've seen a post where a Mac user shot his own hand because his can suffered a baffle strike while holding the suppressor tube. No I don't think holding the suppressor to keep it on makes it a safe system.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RollingThunder51</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As I said, nothing wrong with over the barrel that isn't already obvious. 10x cans delivered as single point.</div></div>
They are more simple to make properly, and more cheaply manufactured. That's going to be up there with the best reasons for thread mount suppressors.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RollingThunder51</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The over the barrel period has come and gone for a whole host of reasons. </div></div>
And yet still remains in modern use on the military's most recently acquired semi-automatic sniper system.
Re: Threaded vs. quick detach suppressor?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tuukka</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The development of front mounting suppressors to the point they are right now, has in my opinion greatly reduced the need for back over the barrel suppressors. </div></div>
This is a much more reasonable point to argue.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tuukka</div><div class="ubbcode-body">However why would one use a larger, longer and heavier suppressor when the same performance can be achieved with a more smaller, lighter and more flexible suppressor?
( flexible for example regards to mounting on short barrels where there is not much or no space to go rearward )
</div></div>
For greater stability of QD mounting for greater accuracy and repeatability in precision weapons, for reduction of operating system input gas pressure change (this is a major reason).
The SCAR L was fielded with a muzzle suppressor and a gas system with two settings for suppressed and unsuppressed use- using the wrong setting, by accident, on my test rifle (in military T&E) caused 3.5MOA windage shift. Using an over the barrel suppressor is the primary reason KAC's M110 doesn't require such a device for military reliability and consistent accuracy without modification in both suppressed and unsuppressed modes of operation. If something can go wrong, it will- eliminating the possibility is something the military likes to do whenever possible.
I was not trying to argue that one suppressor was superior to the other in all applications, but I do feel over the barrel suppressors have unique applications that are the reason why they are used and have been used in so many military and government applications.
Rollingthunder51's inane argument that they are defective or inferior products is just another example of his strong affiliation to AWC. If AWC doesn't do it, it is wrong, probably because Rollingthunder51 is the owner, or an employee at AWC.
And no one has an issue with a company being a company - but for God's sake get a paid account. You're posting freaking advertisements in the thread below, and propagandizing rather than having a technical discussion.
Thread with Rollingthunder51's AWC ad.
I checked this URL- it goes directly to Photobucket- the user has no public profile. The image is zoom capable- IE it is a AWC graphic in full size. http://i623.photobucket.com/albums/tt319/1M_GHOST/AWC-V4-27.jpg
Unless you own or work at AWC, you probably can't get the full size image like that. That image comes from the working file. The working file is what a company would use to print a flier for a show.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tuukka</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The development of front mounting suppressors to the point they are right now, has in my opinion greatly reduced the need for back over the barrel suppressors. </div></div>
This is a much more reasonable point to argue.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tuukka</div><div class="ubbcode-body">However why would one use a larger, longer and heavier suppressor when the same performance can be achieved with a more smaller, lighter and more flexible suppressor?
( flexible for example regards to mounting on short barrels where there is not much or no space to go rearward )
</div></div>
For greater stability of QD mounting for greater accuracy and repeatability in precision weapons, for reduction of operating system input gas pressure change (this is a major reason).
The SCAR L was fielded with a muzzle suppressor and a gas system with two settings for suppressed and unsuppressed use- using the wrong setting, by accident, on my test rifle (in military T&E) caused 3.5MOA windage shift. Using an over the barrel suppressor is the primary reason KAC's M110 doesn't require such a device for military reliability and consistent accuracy without modification in both suppressed and unsuppressed modes of operation. If something can go wrong, it will- eliminating the possibility is something the military likes to do whenever possible.
I was not trying to argue that one suppressor was superior to the other in all applications, but I do feel over the barrel suppressors have unique applications that are the reason why they are used and have been used in so many military and government applications.
Rollingthunder51's inane argument that they are defective or inferior products is just another example of his strong affiliation to AWC. If AWC doesn't do it, it is wrong, probably because Rollingthunder51 is the owner, or an employee at AWC.
And no one has an issue with a company being a company - but for God's sake get a paid account. You're posting freaking advertisements in the thread below, and propagandizing rather than having a technical discussion.
Thread with Rollingthunder51's AWC ad.
I checked this URL- it goes directly to Photobucket- the user has no public profile. The image is zoom capable- IE it is a AWC graphic in full size. http://i623.photobucket.com/albums/tt319/1M_GHOST/AWC-V4-27.jpg
Unless you own or work at AWC, you probably can't get the full size image like that. That image comes from the working file. The working file is what a company would use to print a flier for a show.
Re: Threaded vs. quick detach suppressor?
Griff, just got back in. Honestly, now I am getting worried about you. Its Thanksgiving, I hope you did have some fun.
Poor OP, he has to read through all this madness.
No, one cannot shoulder up a MAC and then "put it in a vice and give it a 1/4 turn" it cannot be done. It's pure madness. Please get behind a mac and Sionics.
No, none one holds on a mac can to make it safe. Just check it every 3 mags.
Griff, the end cap on the Sionics was poly resin washer, it was a throw away, it didn't matter.
Hell, I'll call yours and raise you one of a guy shooting his hand with a rifle.
No, a longer, heavier can has nothing to do with accuracy or stability or repeatability. Never did, never will. Just the opposite.
No, the cans pressure is not determined by capacity alone, over the barrel or otherwise. There are a number of single point precision cans with low pressure.
"Rollingthunder51's inane argument that they are defective or inferior products is just another example of his strong affiliation to AWC."
Reread...no mention of defective.
Reread...no mention of inferior.
Reread...no mention of AWC. (btw, they made reflective cans early too)
Lets keep this civil, you take a catalog, and scan it. You get....right...a high rez image far less than the tiny files used here at the Hide.
Here is an image for you...earlier...right there in Photobucket as well. Zooms, scales, gigantico!
http://s623.photobucket.com/albums/tt319/1M_GHOST/?action=view¤t=SH.jpg
I used it in this thread.
http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2903081#Post2903081
Sorry Griff, I don't own or work for the hospital either. I will gift the mats to the mothers of young kids with Lyme. Why? My kids got it.
Perhaps it was our KX discussion that sets you off. Its ok Griff, we all continue to learn over the decades. I read here to learn as well.
Whatever it was, lets give the OP a break, ok?
http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2919008#Post2919008
Get some rest. Eat some pie.
M.A.C. Glover Street Facility, early 70's
Griff, just got back in. Honestly, now I am getting worried about you. Its Thanksgiving, I hope you did have some fun.
Poor OP, he has to read through all this madness.
No, one cannot shoulder up a MAC and then "put it in a vice and give it a 1/4 turn" it cannot be done. It's pure madness. Please get behind a mac and Sionics.
No, none one holds on a mac can to make it safe. Just check it every 3 mags.
Griff, the end cap on the Sionics was poly resin washer, it was a throw away, it didn't matter.
Hell, I'll call yours and raise you one of a guy shooting his hand with a rifle.
No, a longer, heavier can has nothing to do with accuracy or stability or repeatability. Never did, never will. Just the opposite.
No, the cans pressure is not determined by capacity alone, over the barrel or otherwise. There are a number of single point precision cans with low pressure.
"Rollingthunder51's inane argument that they are defective or inferior products is just another example of his strong affiliation to AWC."
Reread...no mention of defective.
Reread...no mention of inferior.
Reread...no mention of AWC. (btw, they made reflective cans early too)
Lets keep this civil, you take a catalog, and scan it. You get....right...a high rez image far less than the tiny files used here at the Hide.
Here is an image for you...earlier...right there in Photobucket as well. Zooms, scales, gigantico!
http://s623.photobucket.com/albums/tt319/1M_GHOST/?action=view¤t=SH.jpg
I used it in this thread.
http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2903081#Post2903081
Sorry Griff, I don't own or work for the hospital either. I will gift the mats to the mothers of young kids with Lyme. Why? My kids got it.
Perhaps it was our KX discussion that sets you off. Its ok Griff, we all continue to learn over the decades. I read here to learn as well.
Whatever it was, lets give the OP a break, ok?
http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2919008#Post2919008
Get some rest. Eat some pie.
M.A.C. Glover Street Facility, early 70's
Re: Threaded vs. quick detach suppressor?
There is nothing mad about my argument. And it isn't the first time anyone has suggested what I did. Your not public photo account has been the source of production pictures of not yet finished AWC products, Ads for AWC products, pictures of AWC products during testing, etc.
It's not mad to suggest that with AWC's prices, 30 years in business, they can afford a to pay for marketing.
As far as the threaded vs QD thread and Mac, it was an Ar15.com poster who had the issue and he posted pictures of his messed up hand. The people could either believe several posts from various users, statements in print by various credible authors, the redesign by John Foote in his personal Improved Mac design, understanding that Gemtech designed a product for the sole purpose of eliminating the MAC suppressor unscrewing problem.... or they could associate your statement of a lack of issues as one single end user with no problems in the design.
<span style="font-weight: bold">By the way, the two items in your picture have optical similarity that is obvious, but they are not the same.
The YHM device has a spring loaded ratcheting device that provides extra locking force. This has some similarity to the Gemtech Viper improvement to the MAC system.
The Mac has a course thread with no locking device.
Sometimes a small detail is a big improvement.</span>
There is nothing mad about my argument. And it isn't the first time anyone has suggested what I did. Your not public photo account has been the source of production pictures of not yet finished AWC products, Ads for AWC products, pictures of AWC products during testing, etc.
It's not mad to suggest that with AWC's prices, 30 years in business, they can afford a to pay for marketing.
As far as the threaded vs QD thread and Mac, it was an Ar15.com poster who had the issue and he posted pictures of his messed up hand. The people could either believe several posts from various users, statements in print by various credible authors, the redesign by John Foote in his personal Improved Mac design, understanding that Gemtech designed a product for the sole purpose of eliminating the MAC suppressor unscrewing problem.... or they could associate your statement of a lack of issues as one single end user with no problems in the design.
<span style="font-weight: bold">By the way, the two items in your picture have optical similarity that is obvious, but they are not the same.
The YHM device has a spring loaded ratcheting device that provides extra locking force. This has some similarity to the Gemtech Viper improvement to the MAC system.
The Mac has a course thread with no locking device.
Sometimes a small detail is a big improvement.</span>
Re: Threaded vs. quick detach suppressor?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Griffin Armament</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The SCAR L was fielded with a muzzle suppressor and a gas system with two settings for suppressed and unsuppressed use- using the wrong setting, by accident, on my test rifle (in military T&E) caused 3.5MOA windage shift. Using an over the barrel suppressor is the primary reason KAC's M110 doesn't require such a device for military reliability and consistent accuracy without modification in both suppressed and unsuppressed modes of operation. </div></div>
<span style="text-decoration: underline">Lot of WRONG in this.</span> By your own admission, the windage shift was entirely due to your failure to operate the weapon system as designed. Has not a single thing to do with muzzle cans vs reflex designs. Your mention of the KAC platform, while failing to support your claim, shows your failure to understand different weapon operating systems designs.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Griffin Armament</div><div class="ubbcode-body">probably because Rollingthunder51 is the owner, or an employee at AWC. </div></div>
He is neither. I was curious a while back myself so I checked. If he want's to reveal who he is and what he does, he is welcome to. Or you can spend the time and money to find out, like I did. No, I won't be sharing that information publicly.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Griffin Armament</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The SCAR L was fielded with a muzzle suppressor and a gas system with two settings for suppressed and unsuppressed use- using the wrong setting, by accident, on my test rifle (in military T&E) caused 3.5MOA windage shift. Using an over the barrel suppressor is the primary reason KAC's M110 doesn't require such a device for military reliability and consistent accuracy without modification in both suppressed and unsuppressed modes of operation. </div></div>
<span style="text-decoration: underline">Lot of WRONG in this.</span> By your own admission, the windage shift was entirely due to your failure to operate the weapon system as designed. Has not a single thing to do with muzzle cans vs reflex designs. Your mention of the KAC platform, while failing to support your claim, shows your failure to understand different weapon operating systems designs.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Griffin Armament</div><div class="ubbcode-body">probably because Rollingthunder51 is the owner, or an employee at AWC. </div></div>
He is neither. I was curious a while back myself so I checked. If he want's to reveal who he is and what he does, he is welcome to. Or you can spend the time and money to find out, like I did. No, I won't be sharing that information publicly.
Re: Threaded vs. quick detach suppressor?
I don't know what suppressor they are using now, but the SCAR H was originally supplied with an over the barrel suppressor-.
Along similar lines- HK patented an MP5SD with a switch for subsonic or supersonic bullet flight. That didn't go very far because the British Army didn't want their weapons to be capable of firing some ammo types supersonic (potentially compromising a mission) with the failure to have the switch in the appropriate position.
I used the rifle for weeks. I did make a mistake, but it is a mistake other soldiers would make, and it causes loss of zero in my experience. Flipping the switch solves the problem- but the 3.5MOA windage POI shift is a weakness in the system IMO.
---------------------------------------------------------
If Rollingthunder51 does not work for AWC, perhaps they let him take pictures of their shop operations and testing because they know he will give them free advertising where they would otherwise have to pay for it.
This would be less strange if those pictures (bins of AWC suppressors not yet fully welded, bins of AWC suppressors not yet finished and in the white, etc were from the AWC blog, or Facebook page, but they are not publicly circulated on the site or page making him the sole source of the images.
I don't know what suppressor they are using now, but the SCAR H was originally supplied with an over the barrel suppressor-.
Along similar lines- HK patented an MP5SD with a switch for subsonic or supersonic bullet flight. That didn't go very far because the British Army didn't want their weapons to be capable of firing some ammo types supersonic (potentially compromising a mission) with the failure to have the switch in the appropriate position.
I used the rifle for weeks. I did make a mistake, but it is a mistake other soldiers would make, and it causes loss of zero in my experience. Flipping the switch solves the problem- but the 3.5MOA windage POI shift is a weakness in the system IMO.
---------------------------------------------------------
If Rollingthunder51 does not work for AWC, perhaps they let him take pictures of their shop operations and testing because they know he will give them free advertising where they would otherwise have to pay for it.
This would be less strange if those pictures (bins of AWC suppressors not yet fully welded, bins of AWC suppressors not yet finished and in the white, etc were from the AWC blog, or Facebook page, but they are not publicly circulated on the site or page making him the sole source of the images.
Re: Threaded vs. quick detach suppressor?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Griffin Armament</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The SCAR L would not require an adjustable gas system for proper reliable operation with an over the barrel suppressor such as KAC's M110 suppressor.</div></div>
<span style="font-weight: bold">Again. This is false and made up conjecture.</span> You are talking about two different chamberings and two weapon systems purposely designed around different roles. The SCAR L features an adjustable piston because cyclical rate cannot be easily changed otherwise. Cyclical rate is an important design concern for a platform meant to provide sustained FA fire. That's what it is there for. To keep the system running reliably when suppressed, by keeping the springs balanced. A reflex suppressor would not solve this problem.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Griffin Armament</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If Rollingthunder51 does not work for AWC, perhaps they let him take pictures of their shop operations and testing because they know he will give them free advertising where they would otherwise have to pay for it.</div></div>
I have pictures of women, none of them have I ever met. They did not give these pictures to me, nor do they know I have them. I also am not the original source of these images, meaning I had no hand in producing them.
Perhaps you should spend the time and money to figure out <span style="text-decoration: underline">exactly who he is</span> before you make any further false accusations.
<span style="font-weight: bold">EDITED TO ADD:</span>
Griffin. I see you have edited your above post, to remove your false and incorrect statements, after I took the time to correct you. Actually you have edited it a few times now--kind of wish you would go with something and stick to it. No matter.
If you'd like to go back and edit some more of them, I'd be happy to go back and delete my posts correcting you. I'm sure others would do the same.
I don't want you to think or feel like I'm picking on you. There are a lot of new people on this site who don't know any better, and might form their knowledge base off your incorrect statements. Then at some point, I would inevitably end up having to correct them. Just trying to save myself some time.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Griffin Armament</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The SCAR L would not require an adjustable gas system for proper reliable operation with an over the barrel suppressor such as KAC's M110 suppressor.</div></div>
<span style="font-weight: bold">Again. This is false and made up conjecture.</span> You are talking about two different chamberings and two weapon systems purposely designed around different roles. The SCAR L features an adjustable piston because cyclical rate cannot be easily changed otherwise. Cyclical rate is an important design concern for a platform meant to provide sustained FA fire. That's what it is there for. To keep the system running reliably when suppressed, by keeping the springs balanced. A reflex suppressor would not solve this problem.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Griffin Armament</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If Rollingthunder51 does not work for AWC, perhaps they let him take pictures of their shop operations and testing because they know he will give them free advertising where they would otherwise have to pay for it.</div></div>
I have pictures of women, none of them have I ever met. They did not give these pictures to me, nor do they know I have them. I also am not the original source of these images, meaning I had no hand in producing them.
Perhaps you should spend the time and money to figure out <span style="text-decoration: underline">exactly who he is</span> before you make any further false accusations.
<span style="font-weight: bold">EDITED TO ADD:</span>
Griffin. I see you have edited your above post, to remove your false and incorrect statements, after I took the time to correct you. Actually you have edited it a few times now--kind of wish you would go with something and stick to it. No matter.
If you'd like to go back and edit some more of them, I'd be happy to go back and delete my posts correcting you. I'm sure others would do the same.
I don't want you to think or feel like I'm picking on you. There are a lot of new people on this site who don't know any better, and might form their knowledge base off your incorrect statements. Then at some point, I would inevitably end up having to correct them. Just trying to save myself some time.
Re: Threaded vs. quick detach suppressor?
I was trying to make the connection with something not being right unless AWC does it. This is Rollongthunder51's playbook. This is why I'm not first to associate his behavior with that of an AWC employee and also why I won't be the last to do so.
AWC makes no fast attach suppressors I'm aware of. They do make one suppressor that apparently can be supplied with a three lug coupler. Apparently (based on a look at their site- the only over the barrel suppressor they make is for the Uzi, which is a platform that requires the suppressor go over the barrel to reach the threads).
Rather than debate thread attachment versus QD attachment, it became an argument of what does the suppressor industry does versus what AWC does, and a forum Rollingthunder51 used to espouse false negative information about over the barrel suppressors.
<span style="font-weight: bold">Bachelor- I'd be happy to discuss further via PM, but your inbox is full so it is not possible to send one.
</span>
I was trying to make the connection with something not being right unless AWC does it. This is Rollongthunder51's playbook. This is why I'm not first to associate his behavior with that of an AWC employee and also why I won't be the last to do so.
AWC makes no fast attach suppressors I'm aware of. They do make one suppressor that apparently can be supplied with a three lug coupler. Apparently (based on a look at their site- the only over the barrel suppressor they make is for the Uzi, which is a platform that requires the suppressor go over the barrel to reach the threads).
Rather than debate thread attachment versus QD attachment, it became an argument of what does the suppressor industry does versus what AWC does, and a forum Rollingthunder51 used to espouse false negative information about over the barrel suppressors.
<span style="font-weight: bold">Bachelor- I'd be happy to discuss further via PM, but your inbox is full so it is not possible to send one.
</span>
Re: Threaded vs. quick detach suppressor?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Griffin Armament</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I was trying to make the connection with something not being right unless AWC does it. This is Rollongthunder51's playbook.
AWC makes no fast attach suppressors I'm aware of. They do make one suppressor that apparently can be supplied with a three lug coupler. Apparently (based on a look at their site- the only over the barrel suppressor they make is for the Uzi, which is a platform that requires the suppressor go over the barrel to reach the threads).
Rather than debate thread attachment versus QD attachment, it became an argument of what does the suppressor industry does versus what AWC does, and a forum Rollingthunder51 used to espouse false negative information about over the barrel suppressors.
</div></div>
I'm quoting this so I will have a reference as to what it actually started as before I find what it ended up as when I wake up. Will respond to both your drafts then if needed.
You've been defending other manufacturer's reflex designs pretty hard. Is this because you have a reflex design on the horizon?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Griffin Armament</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I was trying to make the connection with something not being right unless AWC does it. This is Rollongthunder51's playbook.
AWC makes no fast attach suppressors I'm aware of. They do make one suppressor that apparently can be supplied with a three lug coupler. Apparently (based on a look at their site- the only over the barrel suppressor they make is for the Uzi, which is a platform that requires the suppressor go over the barrel to reach the threads).
Rather than debate thread attachment versus QD attachment, it became an argument of what does the suppressor industry does versus what AWC does, and a forum Rollingthunder51 used to espouse false negative information about over the barrel suppressors.
</div></div>
I'm quoting this so I will have a reference as to what it actually started as before I find what it ended up as when I wake up. Will respond to both your drafts then if needed.
You've been defending other manufacturer's reflex designs pretty hard. Is this because you have a reflex design on the horizon?
Re: Threaded vs. quick detach suppressor?
You were correct in your assessment that my opinion that the M110 suppressor would negate the need for the SCAR H to have adjustable gas, is conjecture.
I removed it because I realized there is no way of proving an opinion. The suppressor does go back over the barrel ~7" and that, associated with close spacing of the blast baffle aperture providing a path for escaping gas, relieves a lot of back pressure.
The Gas tappet operation of the SCAR causes variations in gas pressure to change barrel harmonics and POI to shift with these variations. I do understand how the weapon works- and how backpressure has more effect to operating characteristics of the SCAR than to direct gas operation systems.
This of course doesn't change the fact that KAC was able to get away from the need for an adjustable gas system without negative operating characteristics, using their over the barrel QD suppressor.
That system works fairly well.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BachelorJack</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
You've been defending other manufacturer's reflex designs pretty hard. Is this because you have a reflex design on the horizon? </div></div>
I see you also changed your post-
I have experience with the 3rd model which provides more positive retention than a typical thread mount, the 12th model, and M110 suppressors. All of the above offer repeatable attachment, minimal impact shift, reduced system length added, and quality sound reduction.
The 12th model and 110 suppressors offer low backpressure- in the 110 this means not requiring adjustable gas system components. In the 12th model, this helps to reduce at the right ear noise 2-3DB over competing 5.56 suppressors.
The positive military operational history of over the barrel suppressors, combined with my positive experience with over the barrel suppressors played a role in my decision to design and manufacture one. They offer positive characteristics that I want our product to offer.
Such a decision is not made lightly- it increases the cost of suppressors about 20%, and the cost of mounts by 40%.
Actions speak louder than words. If I felt that I could provide the same positive attributes without an over the barrel design, you can bet I would have moved the design in that direction.
Thread mount suppressors offer positive features to bolt gunners in the form of simple, accurate, repeatable attachment. The reason I don't soapbox the thread mounts is that thread mounts also get stuck on barrels, and break loose from barrels on occasion (like the middle of a 30 round magazine). That in my opinion relegates the thread mount superiority to the bolt gunner willing to tolerate those characteristics, or to designs and applications compatible with the use of a wrench for installation and vice blocks/wrench for removal, and also to people with custom fitted threads (which do help to optimize suppressor performance as long as there are no issues with galling of incompatible materials).
Unfortunately coming from a consumer product provider standpoint, and from a military background where custom is non-existent, I'm more accustomed to non-custom threads and feel the best product for the majority of people should not require them.
Obviously the customer is not served by a product that he mounts to his factory barrel and fires 65 or 95 rounds before realizing it has broken loose and he has damaged it on the first day by failing to be vigilant in re-tightening it as necessary. That's the kind of scenario proper design can prevent, and the best way to do that is to reduce the number of things that can go wrong before the product is produced and ships to the customer.
In the world of "proper prior planning prevents piss poor performance," the over the barrel suppressors have really made a name for themselves.
You were correct in your assessment that my opinion that the M110 suppressor would negate the need for the SCAR H to have adjustable gas, is conjecture.
I removed it because I realized there is no way of proving an opinion. The suppressor does go back over the barrel ~7" and that, associated with close spacing of the blast baffle aperture providing a path for escaping gas, relieves a lot of back pressure.
The Gas tappet operation of the SCAR causes variations in gas pressure to change barrel harmonics and POI to shift with these variations. I do understand how the weapon works- and how backpressure has more effect to operating characteristics of the SCAR than to direct gas operation systems.
This of course doesn't change the fact that KAC was able to get away from the need for an adjustable gas system without negative operating characteristics, using their over the barrel QD suppressor.
That system works fairly well.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BachelorJack</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
You've been defending other manufacturer's reflex designs pretty hard. Is this because you have a reflex design on the horizon? </div></div>
I see you also changed your post-
I have experience with the 3rd model which provides more positive retention than a typical thread mount, the 12th model, and M110 suppressors. All of the above offer repeatable attachment, minimal impact shift, reduced system length added, and quality sound reduction.
The 12th model and 110 suppressors offer low backpressure- in the 110 this means not requiring adjustable gas system components. In the 12th model, this helps to reduce at the right ear noise 2-3DB over competing 5.56 suppressors.
The positive military operational history of over the barrel suppressors, combined with my positive experience with over the barrel suppressors played a role in my decision to design and manufacture one. They offer positive characteristics that I want our product to offer.
Such a decision is not made lightly- it increases the cost of suppressors about 20%, and the cost of mounts by 40%.
Actions speak louder than words. If I felt that I could provide the same positive attributes without an over the barrel design, you can bet I would have moved the design in that direction.
Thread mount suppressors offer positive features to bolt gunners in the form of simple, accurate, repeatable attachment. The reason I don't soapbox the thread mounts is that thread mounts also get stuck on barrels, and break loose from barrels on occasion (like the middle of a 30 round magazine). That in my opinion relegates the thread mount superiority to the bolt gunner willing to tolerate those characteristics, or to designs and applications compatible with the use of a wrench for installation and vice blocks/wrench for removal, and also to people with custom fitted threads (which do help to optimize suppressor performance as long as there are no issues with galling of incompatible materials).
Unfortunately coming from a consumer product provider standpoint, and from a military background where custom is non-existent, I'm more accustomed to non-custom threads and feel the best product for the majority of people should not require them.
Obviously the customer is not served by a product that he mounts to his factory barrel and fires 65 or 95 rounds before realizing it has broken loose and he has damaged it on the first day by failing to be vigilant in re-tightening it as necessary. That's the kind of scenario proper design can prevent, and the best way to do that is to reduce the number of things that can go wrong before the product is produced and ships to the customer.
In the world of "proper prior planning prevents piss poor performance," the over the barrel suppressors have really made a name for themselves.
Re: Threaded vs. quick detach suppressor?
.
With thanks to BJ, and apologies to the OP.
.
With thanks to BJ, and apologies to the OP.
Re: Threaded vs. quick detach suppressor?
Missed #2. If you knew that, it really calls into question the "astonishingly similar" observation you made (which is the implication of the picture).
We have:
Acme threads VS 60 degree threads
Locking system vs no locking system
taper vs no taper
Flash hider vs machined into the barrel (no flash hider)
So other than having nothing in common they are similar, but not quite astonishingly so.
Missed #2. If you knew that, it really calls into question the "astonishingly similar" observation you made (which is the implication of the picture).
We have:
Acme threads VS 60 degree threads
Locking system vs no locking system
taper vs no taper
Flash hider vs machined into the barrel (no flash hider)
So other than having nothing in common they are similar, but not quite astonishingly so.
Re: Threaded vs. quick detach suppressor?
Re: Threaded vs. quick detach suppressor?
You pictured a flash hider.
Basically the Mac barrel was threaded. The YHM mount is a true fast attach mounting system.
You pictured a flash hider.
Basically the Mac barrel was threaded. The YHM mount is a true fast attach mounting system.
Re: Threaded vs. quick detach suppressor?
You are, of course, absolutely right. 40+ years on and it was the need to have something other than a bare muzzle when one took their can off that led us to QD.
The MAC barrel was more than threaded, it was one of the earliest examples of speed mounting, QA/QD. Integrated in production, yes as opposed to threading the barrel and dealing with the secure mounting of a separate QD device, but QD just the same.
You are, of course, absolutely right. 40+ years on and it was the need to have something other than a bare muzzle when one took their can off that led us to QD.
The MAC barrel was more than threaded, it was one of the earliest examples of speed mounting, QA/QD. Integrated in production, yes as opposed to threading the barrel and dealing with the secure mounting of a separate QD device, but QD just the same.
Re: Threaded vs. quick detach suppressor?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Steelhead</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm not sure what catagory I fit in, but after looking at various .30 cal. suppressors for at least 3 months, I went with the Yankee Hill 7.62 QD and couldn't be happier. I was going to go with Gemtech, mainly because they are in my "back yard", but after talking with some who owned them and checking them out, I didn't see the benefit of the added cost over the YH. I looked and tried AAC, AWC, HTG and the Gemtech's. I read all the reviews I could find and when it came down to it, the YH seemed like the most cost effective sollution, as I didn't see any major differences between them and in some cases thought the YH was built better than the others I looked at and tested.
Like I said, I am happy with my purchase. The suppressor is tough, as I've accidently dropped it on concrete a couple of times and all it did was scuff the surface. I have used it on a GA Precision built .308 and it actually improved my groups on an already spectacular shooting rifle. I've fire rounds out to 1400 yards through this rifle/suppressor combo with great accuracy results. I've also used it on an AR-15 (.223) and a RRA LAR-8 (.308) both of which I worked that suppressor hard in matches where I've fired up to 300 or more rounds withing a 20 minute time frame. It did make the rifles very forward heavy on both of those rifles.
I am able to fire my bolt gun without any hearing protection. I'm sure there are quieter suppressors, but you'll probably need a machine to tell.
Oh yea, I can install and remove the suppressor with a suppressor cover on, since it 'threads' onto the mounts, instead of using a button or whatever.
I am seriously considering getting one of the new titanium suppressors from YH, because I am happy with this one.
So after all this, I still don't know what category I fall into. I'm not 'brand loyal' to YH, and am currently considering another brand for a .22 and .338 suppressor purchase, but I wouldn't hesitate to recomend YH to anyone. </div></div>
+1 to this. I bought the QD 7.62 Titanium and I can run it on all 6 of my ARs with a few adapters. No wear/tear on my bbl threads, MUCH cheaper than 6 or even 2 suppressors, and I can only shoot 1 gun at a time. Perfect for me. Although I'd like to be I'm not a 1000 yard shooter nor really a ninja either. Just a guy who likes to shoot and reload.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Steelhead</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm not sure what catagory I fit in, but after looking at various .30 cal. suppressors for at least 3 months, I went with the Yankee Hill 7.62 QD and couldn't be happier. I was going to go with Gemtech, mainly because they are in my "back yard", but after talking with some who owned them and checking them out, I didn't see the benefit of the added cost over the YH. I looked and tried AAC, AWC, HTG and the Gemtech's. I read all the reviews I could find and when it came down to it, the YH seemed like the most cost effective sollution, as I didn't see any major differences between them and in some cases thought the YH was built better than the others I looked at and tested.
Like I said, I am happy with my purchase. The suppressor is tough, as I've accidently dropped it on concrete a couple of times and all it did was scuff the surface. I have used it on a GA Precision built .308 and it actually improved my groups on an already spectacular shooting rifle. I've fire rounds out to 1400 yards through this rifle/suppressor combo with great accuracy results. I've also used it on an AR-15 (.223) and a RRA LAR-8 (.308) both of which I worked that suppressor hard in matches where I've fired up to 300 or more rounds withing a 20 minute time frame. It did make the rifles very forward heavy on both of those rifles.
I am able to fire my bolt gun without any hearing protection. I'm sure there are quieter suppressors, but you'll probably need a machine to tell.
Oh yea, I can install and remove the suppressor with a suppressor cover on, since it 'threads' onto the mounts, instead of using a button or whatever.
I am seriously considering getting one of the new titanium suppressors from YH, because I am happy with this one.
So after all this, I still don't know what category I fall into. I'm not 'brand loyal' to YH, and am currently considering another brand for a .22 and .338 suppressor purchase, but I wouldn't hesitate to recomend YH to anyone. </div></div>
+1 to this. I bought the QD 7.62 Titanium and I can run it on all 6 of my ARs with a few adapters. No wear/tear on my bbl threads, MUCH cheaper than 6 or even 2 suppressors, and I can only shoot 1 gun at a time. Perfect for me. Although I'd like to be I'm not a 1000 yard shooter nor really a ninja either. Just a guy who likes to shoot and reload.
Re: Threaded vs. quick detach suppressor?
Heres a simple answer to thread mount vs QD
With all the suppressors i have used in the military and recreation I have witnessed thread mounts loosening almost 100% of the time when shooting even weak amounts of semi-automatic fire. (this is hand tightened, what i see 99% of military do with thread mounts)
Im no engineer or anything like that, however... Im guessing it is from either vibration or the suppressor heating up at a higher rate than the barrel and in turn causing the thread mount to loosen.
We all work on cars... how do you get a stuck nut off a bolt? Apply heat right? Same thing goes for thread mounts.
I prefer not to shoot a thread mount on any semi automatic rifle, and on full auto I think it is even less intelligent.
We have tested thread mount cans with full auto mag dumps but only after extensive torque was applied to the device. And even so its probably not a safe action.
In my opinion thread mounts should be reserved to pistols and bolt action rifles. And even then i recommend hand checking them for lock up every so often. My trident 9 comes loose after less than a 33 round glock mag. And I have shot bolt guns where suppressors have loosened as well over time.
Take it for what its worth, its my two cents.
Heres a simple answer to thread mount vs QD
With all the suppressors i have used in the military and recreation I have witnessed thread mounts loosening almost 100% of the time when shooting even weak amounts of semi-automatic fire. (this is hand tightened, what i see 99% of military do with thread mounts)
Im no engineer or anything like that, however... Im guessing it is from either vibration or the suppressor heating up at a higher rate than the barrel and in turn causing the thread mount to loosen.
We all work on cars... how do you get a stuck nut off a bolt? Apply heat right? Same thing goes for thread mounts.
I prefer not to shoot a thread mount on any semi automatic rifle, and on full auto I think it is even less intelligent.
We have tested thread mount cans with full auto mag dumps but only after extensive torque was applied to the device. And even so its probably not a safe action.
In my opinion thread mounts should be reserved to pistols and bolt action rifles. And even then i recommend hand checking them for lock up every so often. My trident 9 comes loose after less than a 33 round glock mag. And I have shot bolt guns where suppressors have loosened as well over time.
Take it for what its worth, its my two cents.
Re: Threaded vs. quick detach suppressor?
Only do bolt guns and all my threads are Metric Fine, cut to fit the supressors with minimal play so:
Threaded for me, apply a tiny bit of anti-seize, hand tight, happy days.
Even better, get the girlfriend to do it for you!
Only do bolt guns and all my threads are Metric Fine, cut to fit the supressors with minimal play so:
Threaded for me, apply a tiny bit of anti-seize, hand tight, happy days.
Even better, get the girlfriend to do it for you!
Re: Threaded vs. quick detach suppressor?
I would hate to think that people are going to be left with the impression that single point cans work off their shoulders with light semi auto "100% of the time." I understand that is your experience and appreciate your position on this issue. Its vibration, not heat. Having said that, full autos with extreme firing schedules, the worst possible environmentals, have single points stay on perfectly if properly prepared and mounted. Since 1985 full auto with even short barrel .223 single point cans have had zero, repeat 0% dismount by simply using the supplied two piece washer sets called Nordlocs, provided by a number of makers. Simply put, using this system provides complete lock up on any single point system with good shoulders and good can facings and does so without any carbon effect. Please let me know if you have seen any single point can utilizing a Nordloc loosen as that would be a first.
These Nordlocs are sold in matched sets (2 halves) and are a precision item. They are packed free with every .223 can going on a FA sent into the services for decades by a number of makers. When a lot of these come in, shops place them between two especially prepared press plates and measure their uniformity. When the batch is accepted, well, they are superb. With one of these on there can be an opposite effect, they lock up past what some feel comfortable about dismounting the can. A number of times a year a maker will have the host and can returned to the shop to be separated by simple use of a strap wrench. The unlock load is actually only 20 Nm (.7 ftlb) far less than the easily hand tightening to 22 ftlb. Yes, reusable (hardness 48 Rc exceeds most contact surfaces) With properly prepared and matched Nords, there is no damage to thread, shoulder or can facing as the "release" all takes place on the ratchet surface.
Here is an informative video for those interested. For the hurried, pick it up at 4:31.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPCfd4Zr6rE&feature=related
I am not a fan of wrench flats, they distort threads and require yet another tool.
I would hate to think that people are going to be left with the impression that single point cans work off their shoulders with light semi auto "100% of the time." I understand that is your experience and appreciate your position on this issue. Its vibration, not heat. Having said that, full autos with extreme firing schedules, the worst possible environmentals, have single points stay on perfectly if properly prepared and mounted. Since 1985 full auto with even short barrel .223 single point cans have had zero, repeat 0% dismount by simply using the supplied two piece washer sets called Nordlocs, provided by a number of makers. Simply put, using this system provides complete lock up on any single point system with good shoulders and good can facings and does so without any carbon effect. Please let me know if you have seen any single point can utilizing a Nordloc loosen as that would be a first.
These Nordlocs are sold in matched sets (2 halves) and are a precision item. They are packed free with every .223 can going on a FA sent into the services for decades by a number of makers. When a lot of these come in, shops place them between two especially prepared press plates and measure their uniformity. When the batch is accepted, well, they are superb. With one of these on there can be an opposite effect, they lock up past what some feel comfortable about dismounting the can. A number of times a year a maker will have the host and can returned to the shop to be separated by simple use of a strap wrench. The unlock load is actually only 20 Nm (.7 ftlb) far less than the easily hand tightening to 22 ftlb. Yes, reusable (hardness 48 Rc exceeds most contact surfaces) With properly prepared and matched Nords, there is no damage to thread, shoulder or can facing as the "release" all takes place on the ratchet surface.
Here is an informative video for those interested. For the hurried, pick it up at 4:31.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPCfd4Zr6rE&feature=related
I am not a fan of wrench flats, they distort threads and require yet another tool.
Re: Threaded vs. quick detach suppressor?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RollingThunder51</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
These Nordlocs are sold in matched sets (2 halves) and are a precision item. They are packed free with every .223 can going on a FA sent into the services for decades by a number of makers. When a lot of these come in, shops place them between two especially prepared press plates and measure their uniformity. When the batch is accepted, well, they are superb. With one of these on there can be an opposite effect, they lock up past what some feel comfortable about dismounting the can. A number of times a year a maker will have the host and can returned to the shop to be separated by simple use of a strap wrench. The unlock load is actually only 20 Nm (.7 ftlb) far less than the easily hand tightening to 22 ftlb. Yes, reusable (hardness 45 Rc exceeds most contact surfaces) With properly prepared and matched Nords, there is no damage to thread, shoulder or can facing as the "release" all takes place on the ratchet surface.
Here is an informative video for those interested. For the hurried, pick it up at 4:31.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPCfd4Zr6rE&feature=related
I am not a fan of wrench flats, they distort threads and require yet another tool.
</div></div>
Very informative video. Since the Nord-Lock has a higher hardness rating than barrel steel, how can there be no damage to the shoulder? Doesn't it "bite" into the metal when tightening?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RollingThunder51</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
These Nordlocs are sold in matched sets (2 halves) and are a precision item. They are packed free with every .223 can going on a FA sent into the services for decades by a number of makers. When a lot of these come in, shops place them between two especially prepared press plates and measure their uniformity. When the batch is accepted, well, they are superb. With one of these on there can be an opposite effect, they lock up past what some feel comfortable about dismounting the can. A number of times a year a maker will have the host and can returned to the shop to be separated by simple use of a strap wrench. The unlock load is actually only 20 Nm (.7 ftlb) far less than the easily hand tightening to 22 ftlb. Yes, reusable (hardness 45 Rc exceeds most contact surfaces) With properly prepared and matched Nords, there is no damage to thread, shoulder or can facing as the "release" all takes place on the ratchet surface.
Here is an informative video for those interested. For the hurried, pick it up at 4:31.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPCfd4Zr6rE&feature=related
I am not a fan of wrench flats, they distort threads and require yet another tool.
</div></div>
Very informative video. Since the Nord-Lock has a higher hardness rating than barrel steel, how can there be no damage to the shoulder? Doesn't it "bite" into the metal when tightening?
Re: Threaded vs. quick detach suppressor?
They actually make the comment that upon tightening (4:53,) it is the top washer that rotates near the very top of the torque cycle. We therefor look towards the can face, not the barrel shoulder. I have used these since the mid 80s and the only effect I can see is a slight polishing on the, usually, stainless can facing after many cycles. Perhaps it is important to note that single points, past 100 rounds are rock solid requiring many, that do not use Nords, to use agents on the thread to assist dismounting.
I didn't want to bore the audience on this topic, but there are a few more points to be made. I personally, have never needed to Nord any semi host, even in the 30 calibers and even with the rough cycling found on the earlier platforms. I would imagine a great deal depends on the quality of the thread work and facings. Also, getting single points to solidly mount does not in any way detract from the perceived advantageous of QD set-ups. Both types have their advantageous. I just was concerned that folks would think that it was some inherent flaw in single mounts that drove the QD market. To my mind, that would not be the case. The reasons for using QD are all together different as they focus on "can off" capabilities. Lastly, no informed discussion of either QD or single point can be had without touching on that which has yet to be mentioned....drop testing. This is especially the case in the larger cans, larger calibers. I'll leave that to others as the data is out there, very recent and very revealing of success and failure of some makes, models and designs.
They actually make the comment that upon tightening (4:53,) it is the top washer that rotates near the very top of the torque cycle. We therefor look towards the can face, not the barrel shoulder. I have used these since the mid 80s and the only effect I can see is a slight polishing on the, usually, stainless can facing after many cycles. Perhaps it is important to note that single points, past 100 rounds are rock solid requiring many, that do not use Nords, to use agents on the thread to assist dismounting.
I didn't want to bore the audience on this topic, but there are a few more points to be made. I personally, have never needed to Nord any semi host, even in the 30 calibers and even with the rough cycling found on the earlier platforms. I would imagine a great deal depends on the quality of the thread work and facings. Also, getting single points to solidly mount does not in any way detract from the perceived advantageous of QD set-ups. Both types have their advantageous. I just was concerned that folks would think that it was some inherent flaw in single mounts that drove the QD market. To my mind, that would not be the case. The reasons for using QD are all together different as they focus on "can off" capabilities. Lastly, no informed discussion of either QD or single point can be had without touching on that which has yet to be mentioned....drop testing. This is especially the case in the larger cans, larger calibers. I'll leave that to others as the data is out there, very recent and very revealing of success and failure of some makes, models and designs.
Re: Threaded vs. quick detach suppressor?
I visited Phil dater once at gemtech and he informed me I could "have his boxes of nord locks if I wanted them"
They had poor success with alignment with the suppressors while using them.
Tolerance is supposed to be +/- .0001" on thickness. However Im not sure if they are completely symmetrical throughout the ring at i've tested many with limited success.
Due to the tight bore high performance cans of today I would most abstain from using them. But that is just me.
I visited Phil dater once at gemtech and he informed me I could "have his boxes of nord locks if I wanted them"
They had poor success with alignment with the suppressors while using them.
Tolerance is supposed to be +/- .0001" on thickness. However Im not sure if they are completely symmetrical throughout the ring at i've tested many with limited success.
Due to the tight bore high performance cans of today I would most abstain from using them. But that is just me.
Re: Threaded vs. quick detach suppressor?
Fair enough, but we have to be very careful on a number of levels. How does one say this nicely?...let me see...hang on.
Let me put it this way, some folks do not distinguish themselves when it comes to paying a premium for premium materials. "Good enough" depends wholly on two words...that which defines "good" and that which defines "enough." Premium Nordlocs, matcehd packaged pairs, perfect in their uniformity and and parallel facings, cost perhaps $.65 more each. They are imported. For some, that expense, is beyond "good enough." And then there is the secondary testing mentioned above, sample measurements are taken under compression on a special press and with a set of proprietary plates.
You may been presented with a case of lock washers that turned out not even to be good enough. One of the companies with the tightest, uniform (non graduated) bore in the industry has provided tested, passed Nordlocs for decades.
I can assure you this, QD bore tolerances are defacto far less than a proper set of matched Nords within in a single point.
Fair enough, but we have to be very careful on a number of levels. How does one say this nicely?...let me see...hang on.
Let me put it this way, some folks do not distinguish themselves when it comes to paying a premium for premium materials. "Good enough" depends wholly on two words...that which defines "good" and that which defines "enough." Premium Nordlocs, matcehd packaged pairs, perfect in their uniformity and and parallel facings, cost perhaps $.65 more each. They are imported. For some, that expense, is beyond "good enough." And then there is the secondary testing mentioned above, sample measurements are taken under compression on a special press and with a set of proprietary plates.
You may been presented with a case of lock washers that turned out not even to be good enough. One of the companies with the tightest, uniform (non graduated) bore in the industry has provided tested, passed Nordlocs for decades.
I can assure you this, QD bore tolerances are defacto far less than a proper set of matched Nords within in a single point.
Re: Threaded vs. quick detach suppressor?
We don't have issues with the 30P-1 getting loose as long as the directions are followed. The 30BA to "BA Brake" (threads over brake) connection is even tighter due to the way the shoulders interact.
The only application we suggest the Nordloc for is the 223A on true full-auto firing schedules. Our test platform is a 7" M16 and we've had zero issues with the Nordloc.
We don't have issues with the 30P-1 getting loose as long as the directions are followed. The 30BA to "BA Brake" (threads over brake) connection is even tighter due to the way the shoulders interact.
The only application we suggest the Nordloc for is the 223A on true full-auto firing schedules. Our test platform is a 7" M16 and we've had zero issues with the Nordloc.
