Haven't seen any YHM missiles.

I do want to say that as of over 7 years ago when I came into the SF suppressor division that we do care a lot about the civilian market. I made sure of that. We can have times that contracts come up and meeting government timelines means other orders don't get built as I would want but getting the suppressors to the men fighting wars around the world means a lot to SF.

We do still make a good amount of the legacy adapters. I don't always have them in stock but we do a pretty good job of having them. Dealers no longer order them but you can order them directly. I have helped 3 customers this week getting legacy adapters they needed.

I don't base any of my purchases on what the military does. I also don't plan on beating the crap out of my equipment the way MIL folks do either.

I'm getting a surefire 7.62 mini2 next , I know it won't be the quietest can but I want a good can with low back pressure for my AUG, don't need it quiet but the AUG is a loud thing and i want something to tame the beast, and they make a flash hider for the AUG so I don't need to either chop and rethread or use an adaptor. I think it's all personal preference and what you need a suppressor to do. For quiet I have a octane on a 9mm carbine.

I read this forum and watched Youtube comparisons for months before ordering a 556 can, and I finally decided on the Surefire RC2.  The Recce 5 looked good and seemed to have the best db  reduction at 135 db, but I didn't like the idea of ss baffles.  At 139 db, iconel baffles, good qd mounting system, and less blowback the Surefire seemed like the best all-around choice.  Durability was probably first on my list.  Is there a better dedicated 556 can that I overlooked? I plan to buy another 556 can and am open to all options.

And no, I don't want a 762 can with a 556 end cap, which seems to be the most common suggestion.  I do plan on getting a 762 can for 762, and am leaning towards the Rugged Surge for that.

Any info on how to get a Closed Tine Warcomp?

The same applies to SiCo, Rugged, Dead Air, etc and you'd have extra money in your pocket over buying a Surefire.

Love them. I don't don't love their prices however. One ounce more in weight saves me more than half in cost. No thanks. 

The Reece is hardend 17-4, not just plain 300 SS. Inconel is a great metal but stupidly expensive when other options work just as good for silencer use.

I got an email last week for sub $1,000 RC2s. They were $895 for a while and I paid $774 for a SOCOM mini with an SF3P. What cans are you referencing in your post?

Not a metallurgist, but from everything I could find online the conclusion I came to was that 17-4 ss is inferior to iconel for centerfire rifle baffles.  In addition to forum opinions I looked at some technical discussions but it was difficult to find an apples to apples comparison of iconel and 17-4 ss, especially since there seem to be different grades of iconel.  Does it make a difference for 2000 rounds?  Maybe not.  5000?  10000?  I honestly don't know.

I would say those prices are aroind dealer cost..  people are selling suppressors for what they have in them or a loss right now..  since most people eather for all the suppressors they wanted last year.  Or are thinking the hearing protection act will pass

Very happy with my surefire suppressors. They are light, short, have low backpressure, minimal and repeatable poi shift, and are plenty quiet. Port noise is the biggest signature to the shooter on a gasser, and surefire has less of it because of the lower backpressure,  so effective insult to the shooter's ear is far more dependant on port pop than muzzle signature. But sexy sells, and muzzle signature is a big deal in most published tests.

Further, any can will get locked on if you shoot enough. The surefire allows the shooter to dump it without any crazy theatrics using Kroil or a pipe wrench, even in a split second if you simply fully unlock the collar, and fire a round or two through it. I've done this numerous times to no I'll effect after putting 1500 or so rounds downrange suppressed. AAC and some others do not allow you to dump the can fast if need be.

The only suppressors I have considered adding are the new QDC cans from KAC, and mainly just for their MAMS, which is absolute sex.

When I bought all five of my Surefire rifle cans in late '14/early '15 I paid less than $1k each for all but the 762-RC.  Silencershop was running a deal and I took advantage.  Last year pre 41f most everything was for full price.  I think Surefire has higher MSRP, but when we don't have crazy things going on dealers tend to sell them for competitive prices to other top-rung cans.

If you paid $8k for all of that you got ripped off.

Assume he's including $1600 in stamps, $400 in transfers (8x $50) and the other two are a Leonidas and a .50cal Lol

I laugh every time I see that picture. Barry should have paid more attention in silencer class.

I like my Warcomp muzzle devices, but I really enjoy the Surefire suppressors. I'm not going for maximum db reduction. I just wanted minimal POI shift and blowback.

Because a superiority complex is much easier to handle than buyer's remorse when you know that you're pretty much permanently stuck with the can once you've bought it and make decisions based on how much money they can save now rather than considering use value over a permanent purchase item's lifetime, to say nothing of the probability of continued product support.  

Lightest?  Quietest?  Cheapest?  Probably "no" on all fronts, and if those are your priorities, then they may not be for you.  

I got it, not everyone wants or needs to "buy what the military buys," nor should they--but one thing that military adoption means is that long-term durability testing has been done, environmental testing, destructive testing, testing under conditions far more abusive than most civilian shooters can ever imagine using their own equipment, and comparatively large sample sizes.  Acceptance into inventory also usually means that your permanent purchase will continue to be supported by the manufacturer, who has to continue to support "legacy" systems in military use, long after most companies would have continued to support said product without a military contract. Does military service and adoption mean it's "the best?"  Probably not--the market moves quickly and people are always coming up with new products and incremental improvements.  But here's the thing--most "improvements" will be duds and/or fail to live up to expectations in the long term, or be supplanted by something new. You can spend your time and money chasing the newest shiny object without really knowing if it will turn out to be flawed or a dud or have some long-term problem that was never anticipated--and given Form 4 wait times these days--this could all happen between the time you spend your hard earned money and actually being "allowed" to take possession of your suppressor.  

Military contract items aren't immune to these things--but it's a game of speculation and probabilities regardless, and with an intensive, extensive range of testing that occurs, you can be much more confident of a given level of performance and durability.  

"But I don't need a military grade suppressor, I'm not in the military." Got it, and that's fine--I want a military-grade suppressor for my military-grade weapon. People get into all sorts of arguments about the minutiae of every little spec, feature, type and level of testing, and part on their weapons, they even make charts about this crap. And guns and gun parts can typically be replaced pretty easily if they fail. It baffles me that people would argue endlessly about how many ridiculously over-pressure proof rounds their bolt can withstand--but will turn around and buy a fad suppressor that's had little to know real testing done minus some YouTube videos and one or two examples of destructive testing--to save a couple bucks, or even a couple hundred.  Real testing is expensive--and the cost of said testing is usually factored into the price of the unit. Sure, the military may pay for some of those tests during acceptance trials, but do you really want the "for the record" test to be the first time your product's ever attempted it?

Cost--I'm not a rich man by any account, and I like saving money just as much--if not more--than anyone else. I will wait months and years to find the right deal on the right part or product. Suppressors to me are probably the one thing where I don't think it's necessarily worth trying to save every last penny. Yes, pay as little as you possibly can--but put it this way--unless you basically get the can for free, you're never going to make your money back on it. Finding a deal or buying a product that saves you... let's go extreme--$600 on the front end--is still a sunk cost. How long will you keep/use that suppressor? 5 years? 10 years? On a low end of 5 years, paying a high end premium of $600 over something else--you're talking $120 a year. A little more than the annual cost of a Netflix subscription.  

::shrug::

Ultimately, I've got no dog in the fight, and honestly have no desire to tear down any company in the industry that's providing a good product that people like, and it hurts my feelings not at all if someone has different priorities than I do about suppressor purchases--or really anything else.

One thing worth considering, however, for a variety of reasons and factors, a lot of suppressor manufacturers are hurting right now. Once again--considering that suppressors are life time purchases--while many of these companies might be able to weather the current situation through blow-out sales, rebates, freebies, etc., as long as things don't get much worse--but will they be able to survive another hit if one comes?

~Augee

Lets see. Griffin, Gemtech, AAC, YHM, SIG ......shall we go on? Have never seen Surefire for anything less than 900 and that's with multiple dealers.

I have 4 and iirc three of them were under $800.

As the owner of a $399 specwar and a $295 Trek, I suppose I should concede your point. Are there sub $500 griffins right now, I think I saw a $475 M42k

It's no different than those who buy YETI coolers, and the mob says 'My $40 Wal-Mart cooler does the same task for less money' If you want a Surefire, buy it.

Never could understand why everyone cares so much what other people do with their money.

On a tangential note, people hate Surefire because of muzzle device prices (and currently their availability).

There's a "used" 5/8x24 brake in the EE for $130

Then you start diving deeper into muzzle devices and realize a simple tweak could remove the ping in their FHs, 87zillion people would buy a closed tine warcomp type device today if they were a production item, etc.

They do not know how to live and let live.

For a supposed gun friendly community that doesn't like to be told what to do by the left, they sure are hostile to things they don't like that are gun related and want to tell people what to do.

It's hilariously and yet pathetically ironic.

I don't think that is the case at all. If people want to buy SureFire it is no skin off my nose. This is, however, a discussion forum where someone asked about SureFire cans. I think it's normal that both good and bad views of SureFire and/or their products would be posted. My first two cans were from GemTech. My primary reason for choosing GemTech is the bi-lock mount. My Shield goes on my PS90 and SBR AR and I like the mono-core of the GM-22 even though it isn't the quietest. I have AAC mounts on my 300BO for the 762-SDN-6. Next up for purchase is the KAC can for my Mark 23. In my limited experience with SureFire, they always seem louder than the competition. I also know a couple of guys that wish they would have bought a different brand of can after hearing them side by side on the range. Obviously, perceived sound suppression is a primary factor with these folks. SureFire cans may be the most durable on the market, but that is usually toward the bottom of the list of requirements for most users.

It seems like there is plenty of butt hurt to go around no matter which manufacturer is brought up. What is the point of having a forum if contradictory opinions are dismissed as brand envy?

Cheap M42ks completely negate the reasoning behind spending more to get a military issue can.

I see your point, but there are those that take it above and beyond and leave no room for discussion because it is either their way or the highway.

I've seen Surefire cans being mentioned a couple of times now in this thread as the most durable on the market. When did that happen? I'm a little more than highly skeptical after seeing the welds on their cans.

Yes, I'm a 17 year NDE tech (MT II, PT II, UTT, ET IIA-QDA, ASNT VT II and a CWI).

I recently had the chance to see and hear a Palmetto State Defense Monolith which go for something like 350 and full auto rated. Yet another worthy contender. Had I unlimited funding, sure, I'd add a few Surefire cans but I don't. 

I wasn't stating that as fact, but for the sake of argument.

Considering the fact that the bullet that hit UBL in the face went through an M42K en-route...the M42K is a military issued can.

I'm ot calling you out. I just keep seeing that here and there. I don't believe it for one second.

I'm also not one to fall for this whole "military grade" nonsense.

Just going to put this out there.
$695 SOCOM 556 Mini from Lanbos last year.
Attached File

I keep seeing it too. I did put some rounds down range through my PS90 SBR and Shield can today. It's a nice combo.

Honestly, I love my SOCOM-556RC1... with that said I wouldn't buy another Surefire can.  I think they hit the jackpot with the RC1 and RC2 cans but everything else sucks ass.  Their 7.62 cans are 10 dB higher than their competitor's cans.  Yes, they are built like brick shit houses but the whole point of a suppressor is sound reduction.  Surefire was the shit years ago but now there are so many better options out there.  For now, My RC1 is my work horse can.  I think i'll keep running it on my Mk18 doing mag dump after mag dump.

From comparing my SF to my other cans... SF definitely wins in the quality of material and welds.

Loud and expensive. I love their flashlights, and their cans have great mounts, but they're not for me. That and I'm already vested in 51T AAC mounts with my M4-2000 and 762SDN6. Their .338 can is expensive and loud, so I went with the AAC TiTan QD .338. Personal preference.

Yup. Crap ton of 51T mounted so the AAC can's are the lot that gets used most often. I have a can or two dedicated but those are single mounts etc.

I wouldn't mind a 300sps

They are. I got one. Just called and ordered it. I'm just a John Dough. Sent it to me in about a month and a half. Works nice.

They passed the SOCOM testing. The KAC NT4 is the most durable, in my most humble of opinions, but the Surefire isn't going to fill its diddies in front of God and everyone, either. That SOCOM testing was pretty brutal.

Maybe on the Joe Public side of the house, but for the military, and many other suppressor users, dB reduction is about the last thing on the list.

Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh......

US Military standard testing procedure for sound suppressor consists of:

• The meter should be placed one meter away from and 90-degrees to the side of the firearm’s muzzle and held parallel above the ground at a height of 1.6 meters over a non-reflecting surface
• The muzzle is positioned perpendicular to the microphone before each shot
• Ten non-suppressed readings are taken first and then averaged to provide a baseline figure
• Ten sound-suppressed readings with 3 to 5 minute cooling intervals between each shot are taken

This data is also averaged and the result subtracted from the baseline figure. This figure represents the degree of sound suppression.
Other factors during recording:

• The ambient temperature
• Humidity
• Barometric pressure
• Elevation above sea level and date

If your statement were accurate I suspect the amount of effort to measure and track that very thing would not consume so much effort. Not to mention the calibration at a minimum annual schedule of test equipment. Sound has always been a testing factor and a critical one.  

Don't take this the wrong way, but your opinion isn't what I'm looking for. I want tests and people who actually know about materials, material handling, all aspects of welding, etc. to lay it out.

Again, the Surefire cans I've seen look like I welded them.

The average consumer doesn't know shit from apple butter when looking/talking about metal. We've seen that in this thread.

If your opinion were accurate, Surefire and KAC wouldn't hold so many contracts, and the NT4 wouldn't be so ubiquitous.

That's because they were welded by hand up until recently. It worked just fine. Different way of skinning the cat due to avoiding crack propagation being surefires goal. Yes they can fail. Yes aac and full circumferential welds can fail. To be honest though, tube failure is the method of death for a can if you sit there and run it until it pukes most of the time.

I honestly do not know which can will die first between the best offerings, if you really beat them to death, but I do know that under anything even approaching sensible use, all of them are plenty durable to the point that it's way down on my list of criteria, as every one of the proven performers is indeed proven enough, there, for me.

I can tell you the welds failed on my 7.62 SDN-6 at the first blast baffle. Never heard of that happening on a surefire. This was after maybe 4,000 rds of 7.62x51, with very little rapid fire.

I get his point.  Why do business with a company that whines and cries about fair competition if you dont have to?
Personally, I've got 4 AAC cans and I purchased all of them for about half of what the comparable surefire can costs.
for less than $650, it's extremely hard to beat AAC's 762 and 556 offerings. (not including stamp of course)

I couldn't agree more.
I purchased mine for $599 (I believe, it's been years) when I couldn't find anything close to the quality or the dB for less than $1000.
it's a spectacular can by all measures and at that price, it seems silly to even consider something else.