eForms have been running 3-4 months.

I had a handful of eForm 1s submitted 9/24 get approved on 1/3.

My SDN-6 eForm 4 was submitted 10/31. I'm already hearing of 10/25s and later being approved, so I should have mine approved in a week or two.

And as already said, you go pending instantly with eForms.

You have to go the trust or corporation route though with eForms. Individuals without FFLs can't use it.

For anyone who has done the DD custom build through their site, does the upper receiver still end up with "Daniel Defense" lasered on it? I thought I had seen it on the forward left portion in some of the pics, but I am unsure.

Yes.

Here's a factory DD custom build CQBR upper:



Will always have 'Daniel Defense' in the top left corner.

Thanks Ryan, you rock!

Awesome!  I had SOCOM eForms go pending on 11/1 and another on 12/1.  At least I can see some light at the end of the tunnel!

IMG_3299 by wormydog1724, on Flickr

Dude that is pretty much my exact rifle. Only mine doesn't do the balancing act.

I spent some time on your Flickr last night, I need to head your way with a case of beer and have you shoot my guns.

I'd love to have some professional shots of my collection. Waaaaaaay better than the iPhone pics I take

I thought you could only do that on the winter solstice.



 

Viagra

I see the specs for the Mod 0, but where are the specs for the cqbr?

Basically wondering what flash hider or MB I can use
Which can>? SF, AAC, or Knights?

What Light?
Would a SF Millennium in Tan be ok?

I've tried searching, and I am not trying to go all the way through this thread heh! THanks!

10.3 barrel
DD RIS II (FDE)
Surefire SOCOM 5.56 RC
Flash hider is clone correct but MB will add 10,000 rds of life
DD MK12 gas block
KAC front and rear sights

Insight is still the issue light; although, it looks like it is switching to their version of the vampire Scout (I don't recall model number but looks sick, but has low IR output). A lot of guys are using surefire and you will want to if you plan on using NVGs unless you have the money for a PEQ with IR illumination. I'm thinking Surefire m620v will go perfect with the CIVL if it ever comes out.

I listed my own specs for block 2 CQBR upper 2-5 pages ago for any input from the members. You'll want to read these pages also to see what's going on with a near future rail shortage.

If I missed anything I'm sure others will chime in; however, the wife wants to go to dinner, so I hope that answers your questions.

I'm looking at complete Colt 6920 lowers on gunbroker. The price on most is about $500. Is this a good price for a complete Colt lower? Trying to make my CQBR more clone correct, and I can keep my LaRue lower on the Stealth upper and not have to keep switching them out all the time.

I purchased a new, manufacturer registered SBR, Colt 6943 Commando lower for that very reason from Gunbroker in October for $800 or $850. I just got to visit my "parts" for the first time today due to the dealer-to-dealer transfer taking 3 months; however, it was totally worth it. No engraving and clone correct (aside from a truly clone correct lower that would cost more than a new car).

I may be wrong here, but I suspect your "conclusive evidence" is limited to AAC cans and brakes.  All the pics I've seen of this erosion were on AAC pieces.  I have seen one pic of a KAC NT4 that had the first baffle pretty eroded, but that was after many thousands and thousands of rounds.  It was an old can, and the actual performance was not significantly affected.  I'd still go with the FH if I were you.

The guy will be running a can a good 95 percent of the time according to him.

AAC or not, you still say go FH?

A brake is going to preserve the life of the can regardless of the manufacturer - even moreso with a 556 SBR.

ETA - and the OP inquiring about brake vs FH for his can already said that he reached out to the manufacturer. Their response was very conclusive to say the least.

If you are not running a can, then there should be no reason to run a brake.  It will be painfully loud.  I'd go with the flash hider.

The answer was 10K rounds.  However, what is that related to the life expectancy of the can?  I don't know.  That's why I'm asking.  If the can is expected to go 100K rounds, then that is only a 10% difference.  If more, then even less of a difference.  Even if the life expectancy of the can was only 50K rounds, it would be a 20% reduction, but who is going to put 40K rounds through a can in their lifetime?  I don't ever see myself getting that many rounds through all my rifles put together.  I can't afford that much ammo, even if I reload.

Can a can be refurbished without having to resubmit the form?  It seems if the S/N and the exterior dimension are not altered, refurbishing a can is doable, no?  Would Surefire do it?





 
 

40,000 rounds over 20 years is very practical.

That's 2,000 rounds a year, less than 40 rounds a week, just over 5 rounds a day.

On the cost side, for the sake of my math I'll do $.50/round, that's $1,000 a year, $20 a week, $2.5 a day. Sometimes when I go out I might shoot 300 rounds. Sometimes I might shoot 5. There's a thread on another site I'm a member of where guys are keeping track the best they can of every round of every caliber they fire in a year. It's pretty amazing how much some guys actually shoot. That's counting .22lr (when it was cheap). I myself went through 11,000 rounds of .22lr in one year. Back then that was only about $250 worth.

Anyways. I'd love to shoot out my can. But just because you don't see yourself doing it doesn't mean it's not possible for a bunch of other people. Especially if ammo keeps coming down in price.

No form is required for a non-licensed person to return an NFA firearm to a manufacturer for service or vice versa. I've had to return two cans to two different manufacturers in the past decade, and in both cases, it's obvious that in both cases, they replaced the can with a new unit with the old serial number. It's against BATFE regs to do it now, but it doesn't mean they don't still do it. From a purely mechanical standpoint, it would be cost-ineefective to "refurbish" a rifle can due to the welded construction and materials involved.

I quality suppressor should not need "refurbishing" in any case, and a manufacturer will likely warranty anything just south of a baffle strike or outright abuse. FWIW, I've put about 10k rounds through an AAC M4-2000 "demo" can using FH mounts, most of it full auto, and most of it full mag dumps, many of which were C-mag dumps (yes, you can almost turn the can red), and it has experienced no noticeable performance degradation.

So the short answer is likely, no.

Sounds good to me.  Taking this into account I would go with a FH.  When push comes to shove and I don't have a can, there is always oil filter.  






 

Just to illuminate this topic a little further, the Surefire also said that the can was designed to last 2-3 barrels. However, they did not say if that was standard barrel or SBR. On my shooting schedule, the 10,000 rounds is 5-6 years. I really don't want a brake, but who could argue with 5 years of extended use. I didn't want to copy and paste the entire email that came from Surefire due to the proprietary info warning at the bottom of the email. This industry is too small to piss people off. I hope that helps!

This brings me to another question, how long do these barrels (DD or Colt 10.3) last? I thought I read somewhere that they had a 5,000 round life expectancy.; however, I don't remember if that was military hard use on full auto. Does anyone know the civi-semi life span on a medium shooting schedule/use?

Jesus I hope they're more than 5,000 rounds.

Sustained F/A fire, it's probably not too far off.  I have >6k through mine and haven't seen any degradation in accuracy.

 

When it comes to the 10.3" MK18, what real gas block was used?

Did they have a two pin standard like a regular FSB drilled rail or single pin/set screw?

EDIT

Seems as though they are the same gas blocks as on the MK12 Mod1, so does that mean the barrel was custom made for the MK18 and only had one taper pin hole?  Or was there just a second pin hole open?

I believe it's the same as the MK12 gas block.  So two screws.

 

I'll want a new can in 5 years, even if mine still has life. Hell, I already want a new can and I haven't even picked mine up yet!! I plan to run suppressed ALL the time, but if I ever need to run without,  i don't want a brake on there.

The brake on mine really isn't all that bad. I mean it sucks for people around me, but to me, the shooter, no noticeable difference vs an A2 vs a battle comp vs an AAC Fh.


IMG_3280 by wormydog1724, on Flickr

The benefits of the brake far outweigh the potential for some grumblings from spectators. But my can is on 98.7163737% of the time.

I just find that hard to believe on a hammer forged or even just chrome lined barrel. Stainless or chrome vanadium, ya maybe. But even then I might have close to 7,500 on my white oak armament stainless barrel and it's still plenty good for 3-4 MOA out to 500 with junk ammo, which is within my standards.

I understand the full auto being hard on a barrel, but does it being an sbr really affect it that much?

I was thinking the "life" might be more like 60k. When I say life, to me that means better than 6" at 100y. I've got 1000 rounds of Tula, plus another 1000 of regular fmj brass through mine. And we all "know" how bad Tula is. Guess I should be looking for a replacement barrel soon.

Which actually might not be a bad idea anyways considering how hard some of these parts are becoming to find. But I just know if I buy an extra barrel, before long it will become it's own upper and eventually it's own sbr. What initially cost me <$300 will morph into $3000.

 

Untitled by ASH556, on Flickr

FIFY

Touche

 

Sound logic here.

makes sense, but before any verdict is reached on this, let's keep in mind we're all building clones of military weapons. One of the reasons I'm drawn to building clones is because I want my weapons to be combat effective(even though they will never see combat), brakes and comps just aren't used on these weapons for obvious reasons, the same reasons I choose not to use them. If ya'll have enough money for a $200 front sight you'll never use, you have $200 for the extra life of the suppressor you'll lose by using a FH instead of a comp.

A10.3" unsuppressed weapon isn't as combat effective as a 10.3" weapon with a can on. And with the can on, there's no benefit of a flash hider, the can is the flash hider. So there's no reason for me to ever shoot without the can, so there's no reason to have a flash hider.




*i hope that makes some type of sense.

The point that seems to continue to be looked over is the fact that some of these guys are or will be running their CQBRs suppressed 95 plus percent of the time. In that case, there is zero reason not to have a brake IMO.

My first can is just a couple weeks out. Once I have one, I will likely never shoot either of my CQBRs without a can again.

And Wormy had a great point. 10.3" 556 SBRs are damn concussive - flash hider or not. Shoot a CQBR with a brake next to someone at the range, they won't love it. Shoot a CQBR with a flash hider next to someone at the range, they still won't love it. And to the shooter, there's essentially zero difference in concussion between the two.

Combat effective is something I also strive for all of my rifles to be. But for me, I'll be wearing a can on my rifle if it ever needed to be used in a "combat" type scenario.

My buddy made a comment to me once about him building a SHTF rig, so "why would I (he) need a suppressor?" I quickly asked if he intended to run around in a SHTF scenario with ear muffs on 100 percent of the time. He instantly responded, "shit, that's a great point."

Fantasy doomsday scenarios aside, it's easy to look at the guy who can actually afford to shoot out a can and say, shit, you can also afford to buy a new one. While I fully agree, that won't always be as easily said as done. There's a great chance that come June, going the Trust route for NFA items will be identical to going the individual route. That will make acquiring NFA items an incredibly long and tough process for some, and impossible for others.

Even in a county where I can get CLEO signoff, we will be talking a 12 to 15 month total wait for me to be able to finally acquire an NFA item if/when these new NFA Trust laws take effect.

Snail mail forms are already taking close to a year from when you actually mail them. You add a several month wait for your CLEO to signoff on those papers before you can actually mail them, and as said, you are waiting a looong time to get a new can.

And shit, NFA wait times aside, who is to even say that cans will always be legal for citizens to register anymore? That's a whole other scenario to be prepared for.

I'll be doing whatever I can to preserve my can's lives. Running brakes on my 556 SBRs will surely be part of that.

This.

The NFA stuff is a serious consideration, but assuming I'll need to replace or refurbish it someday regardless, 5 years vs 6 years of life is not a big enough issue to warrant a break, to many potentially life compromising drawbacks for a small savings.

I disagree with this.  How many cans do you see on VBSS Mk18 mod 0s?  Almost all pics I've seen of these guys show 10.3" barrels with flash hiders, but no can.  Makes it much more "combat effective" in the small confines of the corridors of a ship.  The can adds length equivalent to a 14.5" barrel (although it's not as loud).

10,000 rounds is 10,000 rounds. That's a huge difference in the life of the can - not small.

What are the "life compromising drawbacks" of a brake?

I see nothing but benefits if you own a can.

If you don't own a can, never will, or can't, this isn't even a discussion - stick with a FH.

If you own a can or eventually will, a brake is a no brainer IMO.

You mention combat effective. Who with a CQBR and a can is going to be using their rifle in an HD, SD or "combat" scenario without their can on?

Surely not I.

As I just said, a FH makes sense without a can, but not if you have one.

People aren't quite realizing that Wormy and I are speaking in regards to people with CQBRs who shoot them suppressed 95 plus percent of the time.

There's no reason for those people not to have a brake.

While I understand a person's rationale for choosing a brake, I still find it very disappointing that clone parts have to defended against non-clone parts in a clone thread.

All of this! The only area the brake falls short is fighting from within a vehicle or extremely tight spaces. The chances of that happening aren't too likely and 14.5 is fine for most CQB scenarios. I want to be as clone correct as possible, but the brake may have to be a necessary evil. I'd rather buy new toys (like that new storm trooper looking PDW) than replace the can 5 years too soon. I already did the world class warrior routine and now I'm just looking to re-live my glory days, so this might be an area where I have to just suck-it-up and give up a few cool/clone points!

And in low light/no light a break is going to light up like the 4th of July, very bad for you but very good for those trying to shoot back at you

And if you happen to find yourself in the other 5% of the time, your gun won't look like this without a FH.
















 

 

The new SOCOM series eliminates 1st round flash. I was basically outlining a couple key situations where you wouldn't deploy the can. The military uses cans a lot less often than people think and they have the budget to replace cans; therefore, it's a simple choice for them. For those of us that will use them all of the time, the decision is a little tougher to make. Let's face it, the brake is just plain ugly; however, it does make sense. I would also like to say that someone here stated something along the lines of the military doesn't use compensators. Things may have changed, after all, I've been out for several years now. However, in my day, compensators were by far the most common muzzle device. There was a long period of time when they were even considered revolutionary; although, that was before my time.

I just wish the brake didn't look so dorky

I could've sworn that the 3 prong FH is incorrect anyway. Didn't the mil purchase 4 prongs before Surefire "upgraded" them?