does anyone know what type of can this is?
"can" fits this barrel
"can" fits this barrel
Suppressors what "can" is this
- Thread starter rotoflex
- Start date
Re: what "can" is this
Ops Inc 3 rd
Ops Inc 3 rd
Re: what "can" is this
I wish it was mine!
I wish it was mine!
Re: what "can" is this
thanks zink14....
thanks zink14....
Re: what "can" is this
..
No, you do not...reflective design.
..
..
No, you do not...reflective design.
..
Re: what "can" is this
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RollingThunder51</div><div class="ubbcode-body">..
No, you do not...reflective design.</div></div>
Reflex design.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RollingThunder51</div><div class="ubbcode-body">..
No, you do not...reflective design.</div></div>
Reflex design.
Re: what "can" is this
.
Reflex = reflective gas pathing..
.
.
Reflex = reflective gas pathing..
.
Re: what "can" is this
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RollingThunder51</div><div class="ubbcode-body">..
No, you do not...reflective design.
.. </div></div>
What should he want then? AWC? lol
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RollingThunder51</div><div class="ubbcode-body">..
No, you do not...reflective design.
.. </div></div>
What should he want then? AWC? lol
Re: what "can" is this
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RollingThunder51</div><div class="ubbcode-body">..
No, you do not...reflective design.
.. </div></div>
I've read your other threads about reflex/reflective suppressors. Sounds like heat and barrel life are the biggest issues. From what I've read, and been told, the Ops Inc 12th model's muzzle brake is designed in order for it to take the abuse that the muzzle would normally take. So barrel life isn't as dramatically reduced.
I compared the AAC M4-2000 to an Ops Inc 12th and the difference was dramatic. The 12th was WAY more quiet. It also had a way more different report, lower in tone and extended over a longer period. I didn't get a chance to see what accuracy effects it had, but POI was hardly changed at all.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RollingThunder51</div><div class="ubbcode-body">..
No, you do not...reflective design.
.. </div></div>
I've read your other threads about reflex/reflective suppressors. Sounds like heat and barrel life are the biggest issues. From what I've read, and been told, the Ops Inc 12th model's muzzle brake is designed in order for it to take the abuse that the muzzle would normally take. So barrel life isn't as dramatically reduced.
I compared the AAC M4-2000 to an Ops Inc 12th and the difference was dramatic. The 12th was WAY more quiet. It also had a way more different report, lower in tone and extended over a longer period. I didn't get a chance to see what accuracy effects it had, but POI was hardly changed at all.
Re: what "can" is this
The AAC SPRM4 would be a better comparison to the Ops Inc 12th. They both will share close to the same internal volume and length, but the Ops will still have a lower tone then the SPRM4.
The AAC SPRM4 would be a better comparison to the Ops Inc 12th. They both will share close to the same internal volume and length, but the Ops will still have a lower tone then the SPRM4.
Re: what "can" is this
..
Salmonaxe, its not at the muzzle. Reflective cans were made decades before Ops Inc. started selling them. The idea that they were/are new is material for a good laugh around here. Very old....old old old.....all the way back.
The heat issue is not a muzzle related issue. To this very day, rifles still make come in to have barrels replaced because of the toll of reflective designs in heavy use. Interior barrel pitting is a common problem as well.
It does not surprise me about your findings with the M4-2000.
I think Ops is comparable to Surefire.
Bacarrat, no comparison, none, nada, zip.
.
..
Salmonaxe, its not at the muzzle. Reflective cans were made decades before Ops Inc. started selling them. The idea that they were/are new is material for a good laugh around here. Very old....old old old.....all the way back.
The heat issue is not a muzzle related issue. To this very day, rifles still make come in to have barrels replaced because of the toll of reflective designs in heavy use. Interior barrel pitting is a common problem as well.
It does not surprise me about your findings with the M4-2000.
I think Ops is comparable to Surefire.
Bacarrat, no comparison, none, nada, zip.
.
Re: what "can" is this
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RollingThunder51</div><div class="ubbcode-body">..
Salmonaxe, its not at the muzzle. Reflective cans were made decades before Ops Inc. started selling them. The idea that they were/are new is material for a good laugh around here. Very old....old old old.....all the way back.
The heat issue is not a muzzle related issue. To this very day, rifles still make come in to have barrels replaced because of the toll of reflective designs in heavy use. Interior barrel pitting is a common problem as well.
It does not surprise me about your findings with the M4-2000.
I think Ops is comparable to Surefire.
Bacarrat, no comparison, none, nada, zip.
.
</div></div>
So is there more backpressure with the reflex? Are you saying that the back pressure puts more heat back into the bore and causes greater erosion of the bore? I always thought the reflex designs were pretty old. I could have sworn I saw an old uzi with a suppressor that reflexed. Like it replaced the barrel nut or something.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RollingThunder51</div><div class="ubbcode-body">..
Salmonaxe, its not at the muzzle. Reflective cans were made decades before Ops Inc. started selling them. The idea that they were/are new is material for a good laugh around here. Very old....old old old.....all the way back.
The heat issue is not a muzzle related issue. To this very day, rifles still make come in to have barrels replaced because of the toll of reflective designs in heavy use. Interior barrel pitting is a common problem as well.
It does not surprise me about your findings with the M4-2000.
I think Ops is comparable to Surefire.
Bacarrat, no comparison, none, nada, zip.
.
</div></div>
So is there more backpressure with the reflex? Are you saying that the back pressure puts more heat back into the bore and causes greater erosion of the bore? I always thought the reflex designs were pretty old. I could have sworn I saw an old uzi with a suppressor that reflexed. Like it replaced the barrel nut or something.
Re: what "can" is this
..
The Uzi design is different, the whole barrel/nut assembly is shortened. Same thing on the M3A1 and the SW76 (all early designs, all three somewhat different.)
It is not a back pressure issue, but rather an entrapment issue. It goes like this...modern designs, truly modern designs utilize what is called forward purge or self purging baffles. These baffles, aside from utilizing the newer baffle tone shift cuts (those odd football shaped conical machining surfaces) also allow for a majority of debris to be blown out the front of the can. This is a complicated design as the gas pathing has to be super efficient, allowing for the dwell time to be high enough for world class heat suppression while still allowing for enough gas movement to eventually work everything out the front. You have heard this before from myself and others, know it to be true..the is no reasons, zero, nada for a well designed centerfire suppressor to be able to be opened up..and a whole host of reasons why they shouldn't.
Reflective designs fail in this regard. Reflective designs start off by directing the hottest, high debris component part of the discharge BACK into a part of the can that is nearly impossible to purge out. It is exactly the wrong way to get the job done. Too long, too entrapment prone and worst off all, covers as much as 15% of the barrel at it right where it is usually thinnest and needs cooling the most. Heat dwell is too long, debris settles and eventually ruins performance...and on and on.
Most major manufacturers made reflective cans, all but a few have abandoned them. 1/2 the size, much cleaner, much quieter and much more accurate, blast cans outperform. As an example there are three (3) major .338 solicitations right now (two settled, one outstanding) the issue was accuracy and quiet. Blast cans already selected on two of them.
.
..
The Uzi design is different, the whole barrel/nut assembly is shortened. Same thing on the M3A1 and the SW76 (all early designs, all three somewhat different.)
It is not a back pressure issue, but rather an entrapment issue. It goes like this...modern designs, truly modern designs utilize what is called forward purge or self purging baffles. These baffles, aside from utilizing the newer baffle tone shift cuts (those odd football shaped conical machining surfaces) also allow for a majority of debris to be blown out the front of the can. This is a complicated design as the gas pathing has to be super efficient, allowing for the dwell time to be high enough for world class heat suppression while still allowing for enough gas movement to eventually work everything out the front. You have heard this before from myself and others, know it to be true..the is no reasons, zero, nada for a well designed centerfire suppressor to be able to be opened up..and a whole host of reasons why they shouldn't.
Reflective designs fail in this regard. Reflective designs start off by directing the hottest, high debris component part of the discharge BACK into a part of the can that is nearly impossible to purge out. It is exactly the wrong way to get the job done. Too long, too entrapment prone and worst off all, covers as much as 15% of the barrel at it right where it is usually thinnest and needs cooling the most. Heat dwell is too long, debris settles and eventually ruins performance...and on and on.
Most major manufacturers made reflective cans, all but a few have abandoned them. 1/2 the size, much cleaner, much quieter and much more accurate, blast cans outperform. As an example there are three (3) major .338 solicitations right now (two settled, one outstanding) the issue was accuracy and quiet. Blast cans already selected on two of them.
.
Re: what "can" is this
Interesting. So, whose cans do you recommend, which work in the way you describe?
Ops Inc cans are stated to be self cleaning. Maybe they figured out a solution to the gas pathing issue?
Interesting. So, whose cans do you recommend, which work in the way you describe?
Ops Inc cans are stated to be self cleaning. Maybe they figured out a solution to the gas pathing issue?
Re: what "can" is this
Yep, OPS 3rd. I've have one for my Rem. & Sav. 308s.
I also use it on my 30.06 and .223 bolt guns.
<span style="font-weight: bold">OPS 3rd can & TAB cover.</span>
<span style="font-weight: bold">On Rem 700 .308 (24" barrel).</span>
<span style="font-weight: bold">Made the stick do this silly shit ...</span>
Yep, OPS 3rd. I've have one for my Rem. & Sav. 308s.
I also use it on my 30.06 and .223 bolt guns.
<span style="font-weight: bold">OPS 3rd can & TAB cover.</span>
<span style="font-weight: bold">On Rem 700 .308 (24" barrel).</span>
<span style="font-weight: bold">Made the stick do this silly shit ...</span>
Re: what "can" is this
.
IMO
Go half the length, 2/3rds the weight, cool your barrel, no more profile issues. Pick your favorite blast can after hearing them, whatever brand you feel does the job best.
SW, nice target.
Here is another two position location in the more required large format.
Same caliber, blast can, lighter, thinner, quieter.
.
IMO
Go half the length, 2/3rds the weight, cool your barrel, no more profile issues. Pick your favorite blast can after hearing them, whatever brand you feel does the job best.
SW, nice target.
Here is another two position location in the more required large format.
Same caliber, blast can, lighter, thinner, quieter.
Similar threads
