I've only put a few hundred rds through mine so far and I run the 3 prong on my 10.3, so far Its holding up fine. I chose the FH because I can't afford to shoot thousands a year and I will not run a brake on a duty or home defense rifle. After reading JShepard put 13k rounds through his, I'm not worried about it wearing out anytime soon.

Thanks, That was exactly what I was looking for was the info on JShepards posts'.

any updates on a titanium version?

I've asked this question several times and I have received several different answers, so I am asking again.

How well does the 7.62 SOCOM cans fit on the 5.56 SOCOM mounts and on the 5.56 Legacy mounts?

I am still waiting on the paperwork to clear on my 7.62 Mini-SOCOM so I can't test this my self.  I really hope it works well on my firearms with Legacy mounts.

And on a side note, I would love to see Surefire offer the legacy mount with the improved 3 prongs.

762 SOCOM fits and locks up perfectly on 762 or 556 SOCOM mounts.  Nothing to worry about there.

I can't attest to how a 762 SOCOM fits on a 556 legacy mount, as i've never tried it and no longer have any 556 legacy mounts.

As discussed, 556 SOCOM cans fit on 556 legacy mounts.  I would expect the same with a 762 SOCOM and 556 legacy mount, but can't say for sure.

Do you have pinned legacy mounts?  That's about the only reason I can think of as to why you wouldn't just change to SOCOM mounts...?

Not sure if this is much help to you, but I just mounted my 762RC on my 5.56 gun with a SFMB-556 brake. It mounted and locked onto the brake exactly the same way it does on the 3 prong flash hider on my .308 gun.

I haven't shot the 5.56 gun with the 762RC mounted, and I don't intend to. I'm sure it would work just fine, but I don't see the point. My 556RC transfer should be approved in the next few weeks.

The legacy mounts DO NOT work with the new cans. The product description on the new cans is specific about this. Not only do they have different dimensions, the cans also index differently. The old mounts and cans index off a tab at the front of the muzzle device while the new ones index on the tab at the back of the new muzzle devices. You will need new muzzle devices, that's the bottom line.

Not true. Garin has said many times that SOCOM suppressors will mount and work just fine on legacy mounts, you just don't have the indexing tab. Legacy suppressors will not mount on SOCOM muzzle devices.

ETA: Proof

I have heard both yes and no from Surefire reps, that is why I have been asking owners of the cans what their experience is.

I have an old 556K can that isn't going to be retired any time soon, so I invested in the ablity to use legacy mounts.  Pulling the legacy mounts off and replacing them all with SOCOM mounts would render me unable to use my 5.56 can, and be very expensive.

Incorrect.  SOCOM cans WILL mount on legacy mounts, but legacy cans will NOT mount on SOCOM mounts.  

SOCOM cans will NOT lock up on legacy mounts, because they don't have the locking tab.

ETA:  Went out to try and find the below, but the Coyote got to it first

Ok....Once again.  YES you can mount a SOCOM series suppressor on a legacy adapter. You will not have the indexing system. It will NOT rotate "freely". You can force the suppressor to rotate around the axis of the bore with some force. It will not shoot loose or rotate during shooting.

You CANNOT put a Legacy suppressor on a SOCOM series adapter. The Legacy suppressors have a index pin inside of the back section that mates up with a slot or notch on the legacy adapters. The SOCOM adapters do not have the slot or notch so the index pin in the suppressor will hit the front of the SOCOM series adapter and stop the suppressor from going on fully to rotate the lock ring correctly.

Thanks Garin.....Again

Ill edit my post where it says "freely".  I didn't mean it truly rotates "freely", but definitely don't want to cause anymore confusion.  Before I sold the last of my legacy mounts, I was truly surprised how tight the SOCOM mounted to the legacy mounts.

So has anyone ever done the sound comparison to see how quiet these can are.

There is a vid on You Tube that makes the Socom sound like one of the louder 762 choices. Does not look like the vid is rigged but definitely sounds louder than its competition???

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmarHvk1SV0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7BoVhoMlYU

That means it may actually be quieter.

Seriously. Cameras damp sound that is very loud at all, so maybe the camera damped the SF can LESS because it was QUIETER, so it picked up MORE of the sound?

I'm not saying that's the case. You can look at the dB ratings in Surefire's catalog. They appear to be dead-on with independent tests I have seen. Dunno what the fuss is about, I just stated the above as a point: YouTube is not the place to compare suppressors.

The only specs I've seen is on the website and there isn't any suppression rating or db or guidelines per certain length barrels. This might sound like a dumb question but where is the Surefire catalog with these sound ratings?

Here is this, and you're correct. All 20" barrels.
http://www.surefire.com/media/wysiwyg/main_site_pdfs/Suppressor%20Brochure-med_ps.pdf

Not trying to knock the surefire just looking for info. I have actually bought 3 SOCOMs over the past year and just took delivery of the first one - 762 mini. The Saker was just a rumor when I started buying and my thought was to start keeping everything the same as I already went down the YHM Phantom road and don't wanna have too many mounts and suppressor combos where I start needing more rifles sbr's and carbines again.

My thought with a suppressor is it needs to be quiet!!! I am not going to war and TSR /no flash isn't as important to me. Went through this a year ago where dad bought a outback 2 and I got the huntertown guardian 22 arms because it was cheaper and easier to service. The outback definitely sounds better.

So I am hoping that the Surefire spces, even with the 20" barrel are correct. Part of the reason I have respect for Silencerco is they do lab type testing with the competition. Here is the Silencerco 223's vs AAC:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=be-7ZUkbUhI

This data backs up the AAC specs - their claim is 32-34bd and this test shows the 32bd on an 18" barrel. Both the Saker and Specwar does better than their sales brochure claims. I would love to hear/see the difference with the Surefire. People that say you can't hear the difference between a bd or 2 I bet have never been to a good stereo shop where the sales guys turn the volume up or down one db on a good set of speakers and asks louder or quieter. You CAN hear the difference epically when you get into the 2db range. Now granted there isn't a supersonic bullet cracking at the same time with a bolt is slamming back into battery right next to your ear. But a db or two is definitely distinguishable - so all those guys that say I'll kiss your A$$ if you can tell the difference - consider me bending over bare butt exposed.

For the record I bought Surefire because I thought they are the best suppressors on the market. Ya the Specwar and Saker are a little bigger and heavier but I am starting to wonder if a little quieter might have been a better decision. I mean I did buy one of the 556 minis and know that I am trading weight and length for performance but at the same time think to me a suppressor is all about suppression. I am just really getting into cans and over the past two years have bought more than my fair share as I'm worried about potential trust restrictions moving forward so have been just buying whats in stock locally without much research. Now that the money is spent I am looking for the finer details. Its a shame Surefire doesn't test their products against the comp like Sliencerco. BTW I had to buy a harvestor just because its a direct thread and I spent too much time on Silencerco's website.

Hell I might have to get Silencerco's wizard staff next to make sure I have one of everything...

This picture of a sound test will give you something to think about...backpressure and port-noise...it matters, and Surefire does VERY well on back-pressure reduction, ESPECIALLY their SOCOM suppressors.





(FYI, the 3rd party data I have from multiple sources on the Surefire 556-212's put them within "who cares?" distance of the M4-2000's dB reduction at the muzzle on similar weapons).

Surefire's suppressors and customer support are excellent. Sadly, this industry is super emotional, competitive, and dirty. Since we are talking about hearing, it's also ridiculously subjective.

Ever diagnose automotive driveline noises with your Dad or someone older (or younger?) than you? HAH! Talk about an argument about "I don't hear anything...". Now...how do you think people are going to agree on suppressors when most good one's have a 1-3dB spread across the whole playing field, and different "tones" and then back-pressure comes into plan and overgassed systems and...yeah. It's going to be a dirty argument-filled encounter.

Good info.  Been told the same thing by Garin (great guy btw, very responsive).

I'll be comparing the 556-212 and SOCOM 762 mini here shortly on 5.56 SBRs, and getting footage of the 762mini on 300BLK SBRs, and 700 bolt guns. I'll be sure to link a vid here.

Do you have the comparative data for the surefire 556 rc? Did silencerforum test that?

I have no data on it except that Garin Lee says it is within environmental variance of the 556-212, sound wise.

Trolling. You're a "silencer manufacturer", you know damn well when Bryon did those tests, and then immediately stopped testing. You're also apparently an expert on silencer testing, so you comment is even more obvious.

GreenO has always been trolling other manufactures. Maybe someday they will invest in 50K worth of sound equipment and have the staff to conduct non stop testing and they can answer their own questions instead of relying on others to provide them "data" that they in turn actually trust.

I have to say to 12 thanks for the input. Very good info and think I will sleep better at night...

I like the word emotional as I have experienced that feeling of oh lord I just spent how much for suppressors that aren't the quietest on the market...

I think in general I am pretty happy with my purchases over all and really do enjoy shooting. Like everyone else I like to have great gear and worry about someone else having something a little fancier then mine and that's probably driving me search for info confirming I have the "best"

The whole tone issue makes total sense as I have been a gun and stereo guy since being a teenager and say "HUH" a lot.

The AAC data looks great and knew the muzzle/ear ratings were definitely going to come into play. One question I have is what does the big ol "SF" logo on those screen shot mean???

Silencer Forum.

Are the 3-prong flash hiders for the 5.56 and 7.62 being replaced by brakes?

Thanks

No, what brought that about?

Went to my usual favorite sites to purchase some and some places don't even list the 3-prong any more, though a month ago they were there. Doesn't even show up as "out of stock"--they're just gone.

Thought I'd ask to make sure.

I think you guys should buy a decomissioned NASA space shuttle. Then you can tell all naysayers that you exclusively test cans in the space shuttle and they need a space shuttle to officially test the products.

I shot an rc on a 16" tavor last week. It sounded like 135db to my ear.  I would have tested it but our m4sd 2 was mounted on a 14.5" m4sd and a comparison would have been pointless without identical host weapons.  

The rc appeared to be  a 212 with a different front cap and four holes in the blast baffle.  The mount was neat but the .007" deep fine ratchet teeth looked a little wear prone to me. Obviously the customer could push the button whenever installing or removing the can to reduce the likelihood of wear.

Btw I have 3 b&k meters.  I can test anything you want to send out to mil-std (we test our own products fairly often) obviously it wouldnt make sense for me to purchase your products to provide your customers with information that otherwise doesn't exist anywhere else.

-135db sounds about like what I'd expect, give or take for environmental variances.
-multiple independent data sources exist. They back surefires claims within normal variances.
-the teeth you refer to are for audible and tactile feedback. Not for retention. You could sand them off and the pawl would retain integrity of lockup.

SF 3P FH's

ROG Tactical - listed but OOS
ADCO - In Stock
DSG - In Stock

ETA:  SilencerShop has them in stock as well

Allow me to translate....

Snark Snark, even though I build and test out of a garage compared to you guys.

I've saw your new product once. I didn't have a meter and even though I routinely talk about the hearing loss I've suffered in the military, I can attest that using solely my calibrated ear - your product is right in the middle of the pack and definitely no louder, although that's opposite of all my previous claims - I'll now assign a completely arbitrary number to my calculated ear: 135 dee bees feels right.  I would have tested my own superior product but apparently switching off muzzles devices is REALLY HARD!!!

I think your product is an evolution of your previous, and for this I'll imply a negative connotation! I think each design should be completely thrown out every revision, the only new product is a NEW product after all! While I'm mocking you for revising your already very successful product, I'll impose my ignorance about how your new design actually works with some speculated non-sense regarding "tooth failure".

I have lots of old devices that compared to you modern computerized setup seem outright laughable. Being able to buy things on ebay makes me an expert.

Okay that one had me laughing.

elbows are getting sharp round here

I think it's interesting that people see my posts on the peculiar lack of information surrounding Surefire products as a statement that they are terrible products. Rather I've tried to find information to use to have an opinion of the products. 135 is actually what I would consider to be decent performance.  The suppressor had a nice sound on the 16" barrel. I wasn't able to subjectively get an opinion of @ ear pressure levels as the tavor's ejection port is ~2" from the shooters ear and not comparable to my experience with predominantly Ar-15's.  I was told not to remove ear pro as the @ ear on the Tavor was loud so I didn't.

The Tavor wasn't mine.  I don't make it a practice to ask people if I can remove their muzzle devices on the range.  

I don't understand why it should be taboo for me to talk about hearing loss I DO have, or how it happened, especially when people are suggesting that an ear behind the bore of an M16 is protected somehow from damage (which I clearly know to be false).  

I didn't mock the concept of the RC being based on the 212.  I'm only suggesting that it appears to be and sounds like a 212 should sound, and a 212 is a can we have that single AAC test to compare to.

I would be surprised if the latch would operate in the absence of ratchet teeth, and if it will, that would be worth demonstrating.  

As far as I am aware, both the Pulse and 2209 are class 1 instruments. Given that the performance specs are DB in A-weighting, that would mean both systems should spit out the same information, and actually would use the same 1/4" microphones for firearms testing.  The unique qualities of the Pulse system pertain to spectrum analysis as far as I am aware.  Spectrum analysis of sound frequencies which is very much more complex and abstract as it pertains to sound suppressors than A-weighted mil-std peak sound pressure level measurements which provide simple, comparable, hard specification data.  

The 2209 is the same sound meter that AAC used until ~2007, and that Ops Inc used in the development of the suppressor line the Surefire products are most similar to in internal technology.  Many companies still use the 2209, while some use the similar Larson Davis 800B, and others more recently have gone to the National instruments LabVIEW system which is a computer based system like the Pulse.  Given that computer systems require dragging a computer to the range, it would not surprise me if some of the companies owning them also used more portable systems at times.

Where does Green0 work?

Just snail mailed my form 4 5.56rc!

Almost all of the "headliners" are spitting out 135dB +-2 on a 16" carbine.

Where it gets interesting is the sound at the shooter's ear due to port noise. This is where backpressure can play a +- 3-4dB role.

Still, none are "hearing safe". 139dB is not "hearing safe". 140dB is an OSHA thing. Your ear doesn't magically not suffer damage at 139dB.

Hearing loss is cumulative and so on and so forth. I know you know this, Green0, but some people might now, and I just happened to quote you*

Anyway, I think the real performance matrices for a suppressor today are: Backpressure, flash rediction, size/weight, and mount. The sound is all so close to the same that noone really advertises it much anymore. Have you noticed that? Sure, they post data for it, but the real emphasis seems to be on the mounts, the baffle material, the endcap design, the modularity, etc.etc.etc.

We have hit a "wall" currently at around135dB on this platform. Some may squeak by at a bit less, some a bit more, but really, it's nearly a moot point they are all so close.

This is why I am such a Surefire fan. The mount system is great. The suppressors are light and small, comparatively, they offer reduced backpressure (my first real exposure to this was a Noveske carbine I bought. Noveske uses the M4-2000 as their suppressor to tune their switchblocks to, as I understand. Anyway, with my 556-212, and the SB in the "S" setting, cycling was VERY sedate. Too weak, actually, once it got dirty it was prone to issue.  This is the -212, not even the SOCOM RC! Also, Noveske recommended H buffers for their Blackouts and Surefire 762K cans and H2 buffers for the AAC 'N6's.)  Further is the great CS I get from Surefire. It's not just me, either. Surefire has really become extremely responsive and accommodating to their civilian market. I see threads on other forums of them BUILDING  A CUSTOM MOUNT for a guy who bought a Ruger that had a funky barrel taper or something. Oh...and fixing his baffle strike caused by the same issue. I have not gotten my SOCOM cans in yet to compare flash, but I have seen YouTube videos, and they do seem to do a great job.

GreenO is 1/2 iirc of Griffin Armament... If you don't know who they are, perhaps you could google "Front Towards Arabs"... A mistake they made awhile back, which I can forgive them for, but only if they would seem to put more thought into their words and actions before they hit SUBMIT on things... Which does not yet seem to be the case.

... Why is a small mfg trolling a large mfg's thread? I really couldn't tell you that.

Nothing against GreenO really, it's just that his post was laughable so I made it even more so.

Is the top gun in the top pic a socom 556 mini? If so, how do you like it?

 

+1, also...what barrel length/gas system/who's barrel? What does the ejection pattern alter suppressed/unsuppressed (ex: 3:30 unsuppressed, 2:30 suppressed. This is the only way I know to measure backpressure via the internet, lol!)

... because I know myself, and my habits...

I have one SOCOM556-RC... should I grab a second -RC or should I grab a mini?

I have 0 plans with going to a different caliber at this time.

For essentially the same money (from somewhere like Silencer Shop, anyways) you could get something like a 762Mini SOCOM and then if you did decide to move in the .30 caliber world, you're already setup for it

Fair advice, but the 762MiniSocom seems like an alternative to the 556-RC to me, not much of a supplmement as they are identical size and weight.

If you know you shoot 556 and will shoot it around people that don't shoot suppressed... The mini can makes a lot of sense imo. Esp when you get into guns with non-adjustable gas systems.

Well the mini would live on my SBR that has a Switchblock, my primary HD gun

Right. I guess my post was geared more towards, if you're looking at adding a 2nd -RC, why not go ahead and get a 762Mini.

That's what i'd do, anyways.

I really don't think you could go wrong either way. "Hearing safe" isn't happening on an AR, so they are all "hearing safer"... I waffle about which setup is the most versatile, with sometimes thinking the 556Mini+762Mini+762RC is the way to go,

but the 556-RC is like 1" and 2oz over than the Mini... So... I guess it's really not a deal breaker.... Now... If SF did a Ti 556 Mini that was significantly lighter than the 556-RC... well... I'd have to consider it. But I'm certain I wouldn't want to pay that price. SF has made some progress, but still has some work to do on their consumer pricing.