Posted: 5/8/2015 8:14:24 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote History Quoted: I'm truly not being pedantic here, can you help me understand why 1.25 is so desireable? .05" diameter translates to .025" noticeable difference from a sight height point of view, that just doesn't seem like much. Is there something else I'm missing? Also what part of the Ryder is 1.25"? The middle or the ends? The flared ends (for the threads I would guess) are more pronounced than my Tirants looking at pictures, so if the can is 1.25" in the middle it seems like this would further negate that.
I'm not being negative, just don't seem to see the big deal so I feel I'm missing something. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quote History Quoted:Quoted:Quoted:Quoted:
How about we keep this on topic for the Ryder can. LOL, they just cant resist. Never mind that there are half a dozen threads at any one time for them to talk about their favorite brand. Not exactly. Its perfectly reasonable to want to know how a can compares to whats already on the market. After all, how else would a layman compare sound? SS's db numbers are hardly believable, as they are never consistent. They tested the Omega 3 times before they got some numbers their customers wouldnt flip their shit over. Guys in this thread are quoting Octane numbers that are comparable to TiRant numbers (LOL!). One guy admits all he has are Ospreys, and swears they are the best. Some folks are just prone to cognitive disonance when it comes to the suppressors they have. Frankly, it blows my mind that anyone who has heard the big name cans side by side believes the Octane is comparable to the Osprey and Tirant in a pure db comparison. And maybe thats why these arguments still come up -- because so many folks havent compared them anywhere but youtube. Thats why this is important. If someone tells me the Ryder 9 is louder than the TiRant 9 but quieter than the Octane, Ill buy 2, because 1.25 cans are awesome. The measuring stick is just as important as the results in any subjective review. I'm truly not being pedantic here, can you help me understand why 1.25 is so desireable? .05" diameter translates to .025" noticeable difference from a sight height point of view, that just doesn't seem like much. Is there something else I'm missing? Also what part of the Ryder is 1.25"? The middle or the ends? The flared ends (for the threads I would guess) are more pronounced than my Tirants looking at pictures, so if the can is 1.25" in the middle it seems like this would further negate that. I'm not being negative, just don't seem to see the big deal so I feel I'm missing something. Well, to the Ryder specifically, I have no idea how they measured the dimensions, since no one has gotten their hands on one yet.. As far as 1.25 inch cans in general, the numbers are deceiving. While the O.D. difference is only an eigth of an inch, it gives a significant difference in the feel of the can. The difference in height at the front sight is just over .060, which IMHO is significant. They fit under handguards better (so you dont have to use the gigantic Spikes/Seekins rails or the YHM rails) and they handle better. Whenever you have more of the weight of the can closer to the centerline of the bore, the pistol transitions from target to target easier, for me at least.
I had not thought about diameter in a long time until I picked up one of the 300 dollar Evos last year. It reminded me about how much I enjoyed the thin cans. Again, its not night and day, but I personally consider the difference significant. If Surefire has truly managed to make a few quiet cans this year (time will tell), they can count me in for one. Or two.
|
|