I wish everybody could grasp that fact. Go shoot the can you're interested in instead of watching a YouTube video with some dB numbers on the screen, which may or may not be accurate. Based on your explanation above, a user should be able to get an idea of tone from your videos...I just don't have a decent set of earphones to try it.

I got a real life lesson in that with my F1 cans. Shot them several times, with several people from companies that deal with cans on a daily basis. Pleased with the sound, and so were they. Had a meter with us on one trip, but just two of my cans and no F4 cans. Some of them took a guess as to how they'd meter. I finally got a chance to meter all of them, along with some F4 suppressors, on a trip to Rugged. The results were about 10dB higher than had been guessed. But, that didn't change the fact they're pleasant to shoot. Haven't chased a dB since.

Agreed.

Although, I think most people could find most cans locally. I don't know any NFA owners that wouldn't get out and shoot with somebody wanting to see how something performs. Use the HTFs, or any of the various local forums for your area.

New releases would definitely be an issue, unless you had dealers in the area that got early demo models.

Blow back is the gas that comes through the barrel (in this case an almost 1/2 inch diameter hole) when the slide opens.  On some of the cans (typically the better 1M mil-std sound performers like this Rugged can with its 12 baffles) it will pretty much part your hair, because they are working gas so hard up front that they are driving it back through the barrel in high volume that can approximate 35% of the total gas discharged upon firing a shot.  You are talking about some very minor gas leak that is totally inconsequential to noise or anything else and using the same term "blowback" to refer to it, and that is disingenuous.

When we designed the Revolution we wanted piston commonality with a popular product (as Rugged obviously also saw as desirable) because we already understood that part interchangeability was common- Gemtech and AAC pistons of certain models were already interchangeable.  The pistons interchange because we wanted them to.  We also realized that a piston with teeth that allowed indexing needed to have a provision of protection from rotation in operation and subsequent battering of the piston teeth.   There are different ways to accomplish that- some of the market cans had a spanner like component with a long tapered tooth that would re-align the piston on its way back into battery.   We realized the O-ring would resist rotary motion by engaging the splines on the piston.  It works.  It prevents battery of the piston teeth from undesirable reorientation of the suppressor during the operating cycle when the teeth are disengaged.  You can also feel that positive resistance when screwing in the piston retainer, another way to demonstrate it does work.  

This wouldn't be an issue if the pistons didn't need to index for zeroing, but they do need to be indexable and that means teeth for just about every piston I'm aware of.  

I've used some cans which have no piston O-ring and when fired wet they spray coolant all over the firer.  I haven't noticed that with Revolution cans.  I've also not noticed firearm muzzles dirty from gas blow by of the O-ring seals- that leads me to believe that if any blow by exists it is so marginal it is pointless to talk about.

A valid point.  No one.  Which companies in suppressors were doing suppressor mount brake shields before us?  I know 4 companies followed suit.  We aren't the company that whines and bitches about free market competition.  We just like "industry experts" to behave like it, and that means being honest in marketing.  When some sales person creates a dig on a working concept that has no reasonable foothold in reality, we're not going to say nothing as our products working feature is called a problem.

I've noticed sales people are often a source of total misinformation about products.  That doesn't make being uninformed professional, and it doesn't make misinforming customers a good practice either.  

Seriously? Did you even bother to read the thread? It was covered on Page 1, and then discussed in detail over the next couple pages.

I would guess that when AAC went forward instead of identical to what we had originally done, that was just a means of product differentiation for the sake of having a dissimilarity.  Rugged here has sections on both sides- they have a rear section just like we do that houses the booster assembly, and they have a forward section like the AAC Tirant 45M.

I see the forward section only as reducing possible alignment error in the event that part is loose because alignment error further forward in the system will contribute less to overall runout, but Rugged has both parts (forward and rear with tube in the middle) to theoretically become loose right now, so that is a moot point.

When we did what we did with the original configurable concept, it was because we were informed in correspondence with the tech branch that a small section of tube, example a spacer, not designed for housing baffles, was not itself a sound suppressor.  The "K spacer" exists to allow the suppressor to remain fully shielded internally when configured short, with the external piston housing removed.  The booster housing piece of tube was already being done by the companies with retail sold accessory booster piston assemblies like Gemtech, SWR, and Liberty. We simply made the internal booster housing able to thread directly into the tube, or into the booster housing's external tube.  

When we saw what AAC did, which is similar to what Rugged did, it didn't make as much legal sense to us, as the piece of tube is actually designed to house baffles and a front cap.  So I don't know why that isn't essentially a separate, "Mini silencer" for all intents and purposes.  If a rear mount were fabricated to be put on the front section of these designs, it would itself become a separate sound suppressor, unlike our part which can't receive a baffle from the provided silencer, and also can't receive a front cap.

Rugged is also suggesting that marking the booster housing instead of the tube is somehow allowing them to replace the main suppressor tube.  The ATF definition doesn't suggest that to be a reality, and they probably know that, so this is probably another example of intentional misinformation for the purposes of sales and marketing.



The ATF is saying you can mark any external component, and replace that component, even if it is marked, as long as it is not the main suppressor tube / largest part of the silencer.  You can also of course repair the existing tube as long as it is not replaced, and still marked or identically remarked in the event that repair involves the engraved area, as far as I can ascertain from the definition above.  So per the definition, Rugged moving the marking accomplished nothing additional.

Quote History

Quoted:



For everyone new to the suppressor world...It's public strifes like this that caused the "GEMTAX" ..... go ahead and google that. Yeah that little feud cost us all the above.

Long story short AAC was remarking Gemtech tubes and building new cans with the old serial numbers. Until that point there wasn't a ruling against it. Then Gemtech went crying publicly to the forums and the ATF and BAM! We all suffer in the end. You can thank that little high-school girl hissy fit as the reason you can't just replace a catastrophically damaged serialized part. You rupture your serialized tube... your SOL..and it didn't used to be that way. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.. but rather pay ANOTHER $200 for a new stamp/can.

The fact of the matter is, Silencerco makes good cans, Rugged makes good cans, Dead Air makes good cans, Liberty, Surefire, AAC, Griffin, etc etc.... Watch your reviews, do your research and buy the can that best fits your intended budget and host goals. You really can't go wrong these days.... well, one place you CAN go wrong is listening to another company talk bad about another. Don't fall for it. Make up your own minds, buy what you want and be happy.

-NFA Review

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:

Just out of curiosity, what are the issues with locating the length extension module fwd vs aft on the tube?

I would guess that when AAC went forward instead of identical to what we had originally done, that was just a means of product differentiation for the sake of having a dissimilarity.  Rugged here has sections on both sides- they have a rear section just like we do that houses the booster assembly, and they have a forward section like the AAC Tirant 45M.

I see the forward section only as reducing possible alignment error in the event that part is loose because alignment error further forward in the system will contribute less to overall runout, but Rugged has both parts (forward and rear with tube in the middle) to theoretically become loose right now, so that is a moot point.

When we did what we did with the original configurable concept, it was because we were informed in correspondence with the tech branch that a small section of tube, example a spacer, not designed for housing baffles, was not itself a sound suppressor.  The "K spacer" exists to allow the suppressor to remain fully shielded internally when configured short, with the external piston housing removed.  The booster housing piece of tube was already being done by the companies with retail sold accessory booster piston assemblies like Gemtech, SWR, and Liberty. We simply made the internal booster housing able to thread directly into the tube, or into the booster housing's external tube.  

When we saw what AAC did, which is similar to what Rugged did, it didn't make as much legal sense to us, as the piece of tube is actually designed to house baffles and a front cap.  So I don't know why that isn't essentially a separate, "Mini silencer" for all intents and purposes.  If a rear mount were fabricated to be put on the front section of these designs, it would itself become a separate sound suppressor, unlike our part which can't receive a baffle from the provided silencer, and also can't receive a front cap.

Rugged is also suggesting that marking the booster housing instead of the tube is somehow allowing them to replace the main suppressor tube.  The ATF definition doesn't suggest that to be a reality, and they probably know that, so this is probably another example of intentional misinformation for the purposes of sales and marketing.

Q: May a Federal Firearms Licensee repair a silencer by replacing worn or damaged components?
A person who is licensed under the Gun Control Act (GCA) to manufacture firearms and who has paid the special (occupational) tax to manufacture National Firearms Act (NFA) firearms may replace a component part or parts of a silencer. Repairs may not be done if they result in removal, obliteration, or alteration of the serial number, as this would violate 18 U.S.C. § 922(k). If a silencer part bearing the serial number, other than the outer tube, must be replaced, the new part must be marked with the same serial number as the replacement part.
The term “repair” does not include replacement of the outer tube of the silencer. The outer tube is the largest single part of the silencer, the main structural component of the silencer, and is the part to which all other component parts are attached. The replacement of the outer tube is so significant an event that it amounts to the “making” of a new silencer. As such, the new silencer must be marked, registered and transferred in accordance with the NFA and GCA.

The ATF is saying you can mark any external component, and replace that component, even if it is marked, as long as it is not the main suppressor tube / largest part of the silencer.  You can also of course repair the existing tube as long as it is not replaced, and still marked or identically remarked in the event that repair involves the engraved area, as far as I can ascertain from the definition above.  So per the definition, Rugged moving the marking accomplished nothing additional.

For everyone new to the suppressor world...It's public strifes like this that caused the "GEMTAX" ..... go ahead and google that. Yeah that little feud cost us all the above.

Long story short AAC was remarking Gemtech tubes and building new cans with the old serial numbers. Until that point there wasn't a ruling against it. Then Gemtech went crying publicly to the forums and the ATF and BAM! We all suffer in the end. You can thank that little high-school girl hissy fit as the reason you can't just replace a catastrophically damaged serialized part. You rupture your serialized tube... your SOL..and it didn't used to be that way. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.. but rather pay ANOTHER $200 for a new stamp/can.

The fact of the matter is, Silencerco makes good cans, Rugged makes good cans, Dead Air makes good cans, Liberty, Surefire, AAC, Griffin, etc etc.... Watch your reviews, do your research and buy the can that best fits your intended budget and host goals. You really can't go wrong these days.... well, one place you CAN go wrong is listening to another company talk bad about another. Don't fall for it. Make up your own minds, buy what you want and be happy.

-NFA Review

The regulations pertaining to the gemtax event already existed it wasnt public speak that created the problem.  It was the public knowledge that caught limelight of it that caused awareness / enforcement.  

We arent "talking bad" about another company as you stated.  We are merely defending a negative put down that rugged initiated towards our pistol silencer design which wasn't true in the first place.  The Obsidian is a cool can and like you said customers should be looking at what specs, features, performance, price and availability fits into their purchasing decision.  We enjoy seeing new products in the marketplace but we also like to see factual information represented.

back to your regularly scheduled Obsidian discussion...please. BW