AR15.Com Archives
 AAC vs. Surefire
OpDoc  [Member]
9/12/2007 7:43:52 PM
Just built a 10.5" (Noveske) AR SBR. Looking for best flash-hider/suppressor for CQB.
Have narrowed it down to AAC M4-2000 Mod 07 or the Surefire FA556K.

Anybody used both, or feel one has solid advantages over the other?
OpDoc  [Member]
9/12/2007 11:55:51 PM
I was leaning towards the AAC, then heard much praise about Surefire's internal design and robustness. I decided against the AAC 416/SCAR exactly because of what you said...too loud. No rocket science here, length=more containment=better sound suppression. Just wanted to make sure there wasn't something 'special' about the SF can that I did not know about.
SHIVAN  [Team Member]
9/13/2007 12:00:49 AM
The 556K cans I've heard seem to compare favorably to my '06 M4-2000.

The 556K's don't seem to "stand out" as being far louder, even if they meter that way.

ETA: I don't really like the SF mount, but think the can gets a horrible wrap on the internet for what amounts to a great suppressor.
cowboy7242001  [Team Member]
9/13/2007 12:10:04 AM
I've never shot or seen a Surefire can, but I have a 10.5" with the AAC Mod 7 can. Its a joy to shoot.

Since i have nothing else to add, heres some gun porn.

UPSguy  [Team Member]
9/13/2007 4:02:41 AM

Originally Posted By OpDoc:
Just built a 10.5" (Noveske) AR SBR. Looking for best flash-hider/suppressor for CQB.
Have narrowed it down to AAC M4-2000 Mod 07 or the Surefire FA556K.

Anybody used both, or feel one has solid advantages over the other?
I think if you want it for CQB the Surefire has the advantage because of its shorter overall length added to the weapon. I have the fullsize Surefire on my 12.5" Noveske and am very happy with it. Some that know say that "K" can is just as quiet as the fullsize.
DevL  [Team Member]
9/13/2007 10:29:11 AM
The Surefire is shorter lighter and more expensive. The AAC is quieter and has the better flash hider integrated to its mount and costs less. The inside of the Surefire can I saw looked liked curved washers as far as the baffles. I could not see anything super special about the baffles but I have net seen one disassembled so I really dont know what its like in there. You cant tell much about cans by looking at the the baffles when looking from the end of the can.
SHIVAN  [Team Member]
9/13/2007 12:06:55 PM

Originally Posted By DevL:
The AAC is quieter...


I don't know. The meter results and my live fire demo's don't seem to agree. I don't own a SF, and would love to have spent considerably less, AND have the quieter can -- but I'm just not sure it's actually noticeably more quiet. Maybe the Mod 7 is...


The inside of the Surefire can I saw looked liked curved washers as far as the baffles. I could not see anything super special about the baffles...


Are there tales of woe over SF cans failing due to their baffle stack? Is the baffle stack resulting in 10dB louder readings than competitive cans? If not, this seems like a "red herring"...
Eight  [Member]
9/13/2007 12:38:55 PM
In my experience, the 07 M4-2K seems quieter than the 06 model. The 06 will make my ears ring immediately on a 16" AR. My ears didn't ring through about 10 shots on a 14.5" barrel with the 07 model. Both shoots were at different times on different days, so I never compared them side by side.
OpDoc  [Member]
9/13/2007 11:10:31 PM
I was curious about the SF flashhider/mount. It looks a bit wimpy compared to the beefy AAC Inconel unit (actually ordered the Mod 07 today).
UPSguy  [Team Member]
9/14/2007 3:55:20 AM

Originally Posted By OpDoc:
I was curious about the SF flashhider/mount. It looks a bit wimpy compared to the beefy AAC Inconel unit (actually ordered the Mod 07 today).
you're kidding right?
kc3  [Member]
9/14/2007 6:55:20 AM

Originally Posted By OpDoc:
I was curious about the SF flashhider/mount. It looks a bit wimpy compared to the beefy AAC Inconel unit (actually ordered the Mod 07 today).


AAC is selling inconel flash hiders?
bigbore  [Industry Partner]
9/14/2007 7:39:15 AM

Originally Posted By OpDoc:
I was curious about the SF flashhider/mount. It looks a bit wimpy compared to the beefy AAC Inconel unit (actually ordered the Mod 07 today).


Interesting,
According to the interweb, we would believe the Surefire curved washer baffles collapse into each other and their SS flashhider/mounts snap off under hard use.
JohnnyC  [Member]
9/14/2007 8:42:34 AM

Originally Posted By kc3:

Originally Posted By OpDoc:
I was curious about the SF flashhider/mount. It looks a bit wimpy compared to the beefy AAC Inconel unit (actually ordered the Mod 07 today).


AAC is selling inconel flash hiders?


They're offering their new Blackout mount in Inconel (as well as steel). However, I don't believe they're available for purchase until they fulfill a military order, at least according to TOS. Either way that flash hider is pretty beefy. It's also very effective according to a couple tests (yes, one of which was rsilvers, the other was a dude in Oregon that got the same results.)
ian187  [Member]
9/14/2007 10:13:38 AM

Originally Posted By JohnnyC:

Originally Posted By kc3:

Originally Posted By OpDoc:
I was curious about the SF flashhider/mount. It looks a bit wimpy compared to the beefy AAC Inconel unit (actually ordered the Mod 07 today).


AAC is selling inconel flash hiders?


They're offering their new Blackout mount in Inconel (as well as steel). However, I don't believe they're available for purchase...


Not available means not for sale.


I don't recall PC Arms testing the Blackout FH, do you have a link?
cowboy7242001  [Team Member]
9/14/2007 11:16:07 AM
They tested it but only posted a video...with the lens cap on.

Seeing as how the PC Arms test verified Robert Silvers original test, I see no reason not to believe that Robert's own pictures are accurate.
Lawman734  [Team Member]
9/14/2007 11:23:34 AM

Originally Posted By ian187:
Not available means not for sale.


I don't recall PC Arms testing the Blackout FH, do you have a link?


If you're going to quote JohnnyC, at least use the whole quote-don't just snip something out of context to fit whatever BS you're going to post. They aren't selling them now until other orders are filled. No it's not available, yet. Nightforce isn't selling there zero stop to civvies either until there military contracts are filled-are they an equally shitty for that?

ian187  [Member]
9/14/2007 11:32:49 AM

Originally Posted By Lawman734:

Originally Posted By ian187:
Not available means not for sale.


I don't recall PC Arms testing the Blackout FH, do you have a link?


If you're going to quote JohnnyC, at least use the whole quote-don't just snip something out of context to fit whatever BS you're going to post. They aren't selling them now until other orders are filled. No it's not available, yet. Nightforce isn't selling there zero stop to civvies either until there military contracts are filled-are they an equally shitty for that?



Nightforce doesn't have a reputation for intro'ing a product and then never making it available.

The snip isn't out of context, someone said the Surefire looked wimpy compared to the Inconel Blackout...which is not available.

ian187  [Member]
9/14/2007 12:24:54 PM

Originally posted by rsilvers:

Originally posted by Ian187:

...someone said the Surefire looked wimpy compared to the Inconel Blackout...which is not available.


The more exotic alloy BLACKOUT is available -- just only if you place a large order. AAC has already sold hundreds or thousands of them -- soon to be tens of thousands.


Is the Inconel FH available to someone who calls and wants to order one with their single new can?

I'm not all that crazy about the SF FH so if the Inconel Blackout were avaliable that is the direction I'd go if choosing between the two. Personally I'm not sure if even having Inconel is all that important for a FH.



Lawman734  [Team Member]
9/14/2007 12:29:21 PM

Originally Posted By ian187:
I'm not all that crazy about the SF FH so if the Inconel Blackout were avaliable that is the direction I'd go if choosing between the two. Personally I'm not sure if even having Inconel is all that important for a FH.





That's the way I feel. Maybe inconel if I was going to be putting on a dedicated MG or FA rifle, but I can't say that I've had any problems with the standard mount....
Green0  [Dealer]
9/14/2007 12:42:13 PM
The old AAC mounts were pretty soft. As in softer than a KAC M4QD FH by far.

That would be a reason for inconel IMO.

Of course, now with SCARMOR (if that hits the FH's...) they should be plenty hard too.

I've seen some really erroded AAC FH pics, and the new scarmor treatment should reduce that also.

If the surefire mount is stainless.. than it's probably better, metalurgically speaking.
UPSguy  [Team Member]
9/14/2007 3:57:35 PM

Originally Posted By bigbore:

Originally Posted By OpDoc:
I was curious about the SF flashhider/mount. It looks a bit wimpy compared to the beefy AAC Inconel unit (actually ordered the Mod 07 today).


Interesting,
According to the interweb, we would believe the Surefire curved washer baffles collapse into each other and their SS flashhider/mounts snap off under hard use.
Quite unusual for me to actually be happy with something and then to find out I bought crap.
Dr_Nimslow  [Team Member]
9/14/2007 9:05:28 PM
I'm very happy with my Surefire FA556K.

Some Pics, and a short range report in this thread.

ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=6&f=20&t=226312


And the mount works well. Never had any problems with it.
SHIVAN  [Team Member]
9/14/2007 10:56:15 PM
So no verifiable failure stories of the SF 556K??
ian187  [Member]
9/14/2007 11:27:24 PM

Originally Posted By SHIVAN:
So no verifiable failure stories of the SF 556K??


Robert was quoted on his site as saying the SF cans passed his goofy 416 "military" test. I have no doubt that if they failed Robert/AAC would tell everyone who would listen. This isn't proof one way or the other just anecdotal jibber jabber.

SHIVAN  [Team Member]
9/14/2007 11:29:10 PM

Originally Posted By ian187:

Originally Posted By SHIVAN:
So no verifiable failure stories of the SF 556K??


Robert was quoted on his site as saying the SF cans passed his goofy 416 "military" test. I have no doubt that if they failed Robert/AAC would tell everyone who would listen. This isn't proof one way or the other just anecdotal jibber jabber.



Yeah, I suspect that if it's not posted there, there probably won't be anything to post.

So we are back to the SF 556K being a solid can, with a solid mount, and solid sound performance/reduction.

Sounds like all the things you look for when buying a suppressor.

MGKAC556  [Member]
9/14/2007 11:31:32 PM

Originally Posted By ian187:

Originally Posted By JohnnyC:

Originally Posted By kc3:

Originally Posted By OpDoc:
I was curious about the SF flashhider/mount. It looks a bit wimpy compared to the beefy AAC Inconel unit (actually ordered the Mod 07 today).


AAC is selling inconel flash hiders?


They're offering their new Blackout mount in Inconel (as well as steel). However, I don't believe they're available for purchase...


Not available means not for sale.


I don't recall PC Arms testing the Blackout FH, do you have a link?


Yes PC Arms did test the Blackout FH -- I was there. The camera cap was not on--it was very effective and so some said that the cap was on because you could see no flash. It really has impressive performance.

Dave Brown
dmgangl  [Team Member]
9/15/2007 12:10:38 PM
The surefire cans that I have played with are very quiet. They are more expensive but that is because they are made out of better material. The surefire cans are made out of inconel the only thing that isn't is the spring that is used in the mount. Also except for the spring everything else is made in-house by surefire. And the mounts are excellent.

That being said the AAC are fine cans both will work better than most will ever need. I honestly would buy which ever can had the best deal at the time. I am probably going to buy a surefire after I buy a new car, but thats because I can get a better deal on one.

DMgangl
DevL  [Team Member]
9/15/2007 3:14:49 PM
I thought the reasoning of the thick tines on the Blackout was to make them thermally reisitant WITHOUT having to go to Inconel? I am much more concerned with my mount for the suppressor interface wearing out than the tines of my Blackout.
Dr_Nimslow  [Team Member]
9/15/2007 10:37:53 PM

Originally Posted By OpDoc:
I was curious about the SF flashhider/mount. It looks a bit wimpy compared to the beefy AAC Inconel unit (actually ordered the Mod 07 today).


It's not that "wimpy". The FH, or Compensator mount.





OpDoc  [Member]
9/16/2007 12:20:18 AM
I retract the "wimpy" statement fully. SHIVAN had mentioned that he did not like the SF mount and having only seen a picture of the mount in SF's catalog, it simply did not look (to me) as robust. I was unaware that they are SS. I also (apparently wrongly) assumed the AAC mount that came with the Mod 07 was Inconel.
The whole reason I started this post was because I have heard many good things about the SF can, and I am sure it, and its mount, are excellent. If I had the funds, I'd own both.
DevL  [Team Member]
9/17/2007 3:29:53 PM
I have seen pics of Inconel Phantom mounts... I have never seen pics of Inconel Blackout mounts. It is quite obvious the Inconel mounts are Inconel in the pics I saw. The Phantom is very thin and fragile. I can see why someone would want Inconel for the flash hider since it can see so much abuse if it was thin. I cant see any reason someone would require an Inconel Blackout unless it was for a beltfed application.



These Inconel mounts seem to take the finish a bit differently. M42K and SPR/M4 prototype Inconel mounts.
bigbore  [Industry Partner]
9/17/2007 3:59:00 PM

Originally Posted By DevL:
The Phantom is very thin and fragile. I can see why someone would want Inconel for the flash hider since it can see so much abuse if it was thin.


Does anyone have pics of broken flash hider mounts(other than KAC)? The wear on a flash hider mount would be insignificant from use. I ASSumed AAC was going to Inconel to keep the locking teeth from wearing out prematurely.
DevL  [Team Member]
9/17/2007 11:51:24 PM
Does Inconel really help the teeth that much? I have had my mount wear in to a point it now closes down one full notch further than the day it was new. This is several hundred mountings and will be fine if it does not continue to wear.
FedDC  [Member]
9/17/2007 11:59:12 PM

Originally Posted By bigbore:

Originally Posted By DevL:
The Phantom is very thin and fragile. I can see why someone would want Inconel for the flash hider since it can see so much abuse if it was thin.


Does anyone have pics of broken flash hider mounts(other than KAC)? The wear on a flash hider mount would be insignificant from use. I ASSumed AAC was going to Inconel to keep the locking teeth from wearing out prematurely.



In a military environment, the flash hider takes a real beating. The rifle rides with the flash hider down and in contact with the floor in an aircraft or in a HMMWVE depending on your position in the vehicle. Every time the vehicle hits a bump, the hider gets banged into the metal floorboards.

On top of that, I have seen rifles propped up in a corner on a concrete floor with the muzzle down to "keep the dirt out".

Either way, the leading edge of every compensator/hider on a military issued M-4 I have seen was worn silver from grinding it on something.

I even knew one guy that used his rifle to break out 3 consecutive windows from a car...

kemp  [Member]
9/18/2007 5:54:53 AM
I'm pretty convinced that SOCOM wanted inconel flash hiders because they would like to be able to put AAC's SCAR-L and SCAR-H cans on the Mk46 and Mk48 as well.
chromeluv  [Team Member]
9/18/2007 8:13:16 AM

Originally Posted By kemp:
I'm pretty convinced that SOCOM wanted inconel flash hiders because they would like to be able to put AAC's SCAR-L and SCAR-H cans on the Mk46 and Mk48 as well.



huh....
kemp  [Member]
9/20/2007 8:01:11 AM

Originally Posted By chromeluv:



huh....


Think about it.. FN makes the SCAR, FN also happens to make the Mk46 and Mk48 mod 1 for SOCOM. They have issued sollicitations for suppressors for the beltfed platform in the past.
Azalin  [Member]
9/21/2007 11:14:46 AM

Originally Posted By bigbore:

Originally Posted By DevL:
The Phantom is very thin and fragile. I can see why someone would want Inconel for the flash hider since it can see so much abuse if it was thin.


Does anyone have pics of broken flash hider mounts(other than KAC)? The wear on a flash hider mount would be insignificant from use. I ASSumed AAC was going to Inconel to keep the locking teeth from wearing out prematurely.


Inconel was used because high heat generated during various military trials would cause the phantom design to crack.

AAC also went away from the phantom design because it would crack as indicated above and is an inferior flash hider to the new Blackout design.

The teeth have never had a wear problem related to material.

Freddy
AAC
Azalin  [Member]
9/21/2007 11:16:36 AM

Originally Posted By dmgangl:
The surefire cans that I have played with are very quiet. They are more expensive but that is because they are made out of better material. The surefire cans are made out of inconel the only thing that isn't is the spring that is used in the mount. Also except for the spring everything else is made in-house by surefire. And the mounts are excellent.

That being said the AAC are fine cans both will work better than most will ever need. I honestly would buy which ever can had the best deal at the time. I am probably going to buy a surefire after I buy a new car, but thats because I can get a better deal on one.

DMgangl


Surefire uses 600 and 625 Inconel which offers virtually no strength advantage over 300 series stainless.

We uses a much higher grade of heat treated Inconel in all of the right places.

Freddy
AAC
S-1  [Team Member]
9/21/2007 11:50:28 AM

Originally Posted By Azalin:
Inconel was used because high heat generated during various military trials would cause the phantom design to crack.

AAC also went away from the phantom design because it would crack as indicated above and is an inferior flash hider to the new Blackout design.

The teeth have never had a wear problem related to material.

Freddy
AAC


I thought (or was told by many AAC fanboys) that AAC's Phantom FH was superior to everything out there.... well that was before this new "Blackout" FH came out...

S-1  [Team Member]
9/21/2007 11:56:41 AM

Originally Posted By kemp:

Originally Posted By chromeluv:



huh....


Think about it.. FN makes the SCAR, FN also happens to make the Mk46 and Mk48 mod 1 for SOCOM. They have issued sollicitations for suppressors for the beltfed platform in the past.


They have used the KAC M4QD on the Mk46's.....

Note the FH...
RAIDERBOB  [Team Member]
9/21/2007 12:03:12 PM
Suppressor newb here, I thought the Surefire was for 11.5 and over?
SHIVAN  [Team Member]
9/21/2007 12:16:22 PM
Weren't the AAC Phantom mounts touted as far superior to any mount?? What's changed?
Azalin  [Member]
9/21/2007 12:18:31 PM

Originally Posted By S-1:

Originally Posted By Azalin:
Inconel was used because high heat generated during various military trials would cause the phantom design to crack.

AAC also went away from the phantom design because it would crack as indicated above and is an inferior flash hider to the new Blackout design.

The teeth have never had a wear problem related to material.

Freddy
AAC


I thought (or was told by many AAC fanboys) that AAC's Phantom FH was superior to everything out there.... well that was before this new "Blackout" FH came out...



It is superior to any other design being used by other manufacturers.

The militaries 416 test as described on silencer tests is what it takes to causes the cracking problem. The Blackout design is simply an improvement, a response to the deficiencies with the previous designs. Nothing is ever perfect.

Freddy
AAC
Azalin  [Member]
9/21/2007 12:19:48 PM

Originally Posted By SHIVAN:
Weren't the AAC Phantom mounts touted as far superior to any mount?? What's changed?


In what ways? It is certainly a better flash hider that others availiable.

Freddy
AAC
SHIVAN  [Team Member]
9/21/2007 12:22:32 PM

Originally Posted By Azalin:

Originally Posted By SHIVAN:
Weren't the AAC Phantom mounts touted as far superior to any mount?? What's changed?


In what ways? It is certainly a better flash hider that others availiable.

Freddy
AAC


Oh, I misread what you wrote, I got it now. The Phantom mount is inferior to the new inconel mounts AAC's offering.

How does the AAC Phantom mount compare in construction to the YHM Phantom mounts?

Are you guys using similar materials?

ETA: From what are the Mod 07 mounts made??
Azalin  [Member]
9/21/2007 5:01:54 PM

Originally Posted By SHIVAN:

Originally Posted By Azalin:

Originally Posted By SHIVAN:
Weren't the AAC Phantom mounts touted as far superior to any mount?? What's changed?


In what ways? It is certainly a better flash hider that others availiable.

Freddy
AAC


Oh, I misread what you wrote, I got it now. The Phantom mount is inferior to the new inconel mounts AAC's offering.

How does the AAC Phantom mount compare in construction to the YHM Phantom mounts?

Are you guys using similar materials?

ETA: From what are the Mod 07 mounts made??


We do not offer an Inconel Phantom mount to the civilian market.

The AAC Phantom mount uses similar materials as the YHM Phantom. The difference lies in the number of slots and other proprietary manufacturing processed which render it a superior flash hider.

The new Blackout flash hiders are manufactured from heat treated 17-4 stainless which is vastly superior to the 4130 used to produce the Phantoms.

Flash hiders produced for the military are constructed from an even more exotic material but will not be available to civilians at this time.

Freddy
AAC
S-1  [Team Member]
9/21/2007 8:13:44 PM

Originally Posted By Azalin:
It is superior to any other design being used by other manufacturers.


Please tell me how it is superior to every other design out there. What test determined that AAC's flash hiders/mounts are superior to other makers? Who did the testing?


Originally Posted By Azalin:
The militaries 416 test as described on silencer tests is what it takes to causes the cracking problem. The Blackout design is simply an improvement, a response to the deficiencies with the previous designs. Nothing is ever perfect.

Freddy
AAC


Oh, you mean the "tests" that the KAC M4QD NT4, along with the Surefire "K" model passed also?
1928A1  [Team Member]
9/21/2007 8:52:58 PM

Originally Posted By Azalin:

"the phantom is an inferior flash hider to the new Blackout design."
"It is superior to any other design being used by other manufacturers."

"Surefire uses 600 and 625 Inconel which offers virtually no strength advantage over 300 series stainless.

We uses a much higher grade of heat treated Inconel in all of the right places."

"We do not offer an Inconel Phantom mount to the civilian market."

"The new Blackout flash hiders are manufactured from heat treated 17-4 stainless which is vastly superior to the 4130 used to produce the Phantoms."


Freddy
AAC


Let me see....AAC is better... Surefire uses inferior materials...AAC is better...the YHM Phantom uses inferior materials...AAC is better...everyone is inferior to AAC cause AAC uses Stainless? Inconel? What is all this garbage about again? AAC won't sell the Inconel one to the public anyway.

The Blackout series, the Blackbox, the Blackhole of hype and misinformation...
SHIVAN  [Team Member]
9/21/2007 8:58:13 PM

Originally Posted By Azalin:
We do not offer an Inconel Phantom mount to the civilian market.


That's unfortunate. I'd love to buy one. My original M4-2000 mount and even my updated Phantoms are taking a "beating". I bet the inconel ones would wear much better.

Any reason AAC will not sell them to civvies?


Flash hiders produced for the military are constructed from an even more exotic material but will not be available to civilians at this time.


That's unfortunate, I bet they would sell on the open market like they were going out of style. You know, everyone has to have what the military has, and such.
chromeluv  [Team Member]
9/21/2007 9:17:43 PM

Originally Posted By 1928A1:

Originally Posted By Azalin:

"the phantom is an inferior flash hider to the new Blackout design."
"It is superior to any other design being used by other manufacturers."

"Surefire uses 600 and 625 Inconel which offers virtually no strength advantage over 300 series stainless.

We uses a much higher grade of heat treated Inconel in all of the right places."

"We do not offer an Inconel Phantom mount to the civilian market."

"The new Blackout flash hiders are manufactured from heat treated 17-4 stainless which is vastly superior to the 4130 used to produce the Phantoms."


Freddy
AAC


Let me see....AAC is better... Surefire uses inferior materials...AAC is better...the YHM Phantom uses inferior materials...AAC is better...everyone is inferior to AAC cause AAC uses Stainless? Inconel? What is all this garbage about again? AAC won't sell the Inconel one to the public anyway.

The Blackout series, the Blackbox, the Blackhole of hype and misinformation...


ruh roh......