User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/2/2023 8:39:36 PM EDT
[#1]
The big gain here is the fantastic reduction in blowback.
Ounces to pounds, inches for leverage, but the big gain is a baffle stack that’s 10 years newer that sounds just as good that doesn’t gas you out and beat your gun up. My .02 |
|
|
|
GA, USA
|
Posted: 12/2/2023 10:24:03 PM EDT
[#2]
I had a conjugal visit with my Ranger 5. Based on my measurements:
The Direct thread 1/2-28 mount pokes out the rear of the Ranger 5 by about .100. The Stamp mount pokes out the rear about 1.240. My public school math makes that a difference of 1.140 for the Stamp mount over the direct thread mount. SilentMike Dead Air AAC 1998-2018 |
|
|
WA, USA
|
Posted: 12/3/2023 1:09:32 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Atlmike: I had a conjugal visit with my Ranger 5. Based on my measurements: The Direct thread 1/2-28 mount pokes out the rear of the Ranger 5 by about .100. The Stamp mount pokes out the rear about 1.240. My public school math makes that a difference of 1.140 for the Stamp mount over the direct thread mount. SilentMike Dead Air AAC 1998-2018 |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2023 1:42:48 PM EDT
[Last Edit: JSGlock34]
[#4]
Ranger 7 Mini on the left, Ranger 5 on the right. FDE finish. These are restorations from a 762-SDN-6 and M4-2000 respectively.
 This time with STAMP mounts - in this picture it is the Ranger 5 on the left, Ranger 7 Mini on the right.  Here's the Ranger 5 mounted on my URG-I upper using the STAMP and 51T Blackout.  Some initial impressions on the Ranger 5 - 1. They aren't kidding that the new 51T adapter locks up tight. It was so tight that I was actually concerned that I'd end up rotating the suppressor body out of the HUB, though this wasn't an actual problem. So far, this seems like a significant improvement. 2. The M4-2000 is notoriously gassy; the Ranger 5's reduced back pressure was noticeable. No, it's not a flow-though can - and reduced back pressure doesn't mean no gas, but it is better. Multi-round strings that would've made my eyes water with the M4-2000 were much more tolerable with the Ranger 5. 3. The Ranger 5 is reportedly a few db louder than the M4-2000 (likely due to the oversized baffles), but I didn't notice much difference. I've only put a few rounds through the Ranger 7 Mini, using the same 5.56mm host. The shorter length and larger bore resulted in a significantly louder can than the Ranger 5. Not unexpected on the 5.56mm gun - but also not the optimal pairing. I'll be trying this can on a more appropriate .300 upper in the future and will report back. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 12/3/2023 6:17:17 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JSGlock34: Ranger 7 Mini on the left, Ranger 5 on the right. FDE finish. These are restorations from a 762-SDN-6 and M4-2000 respectively. https://i.imgur.com/GKhVrzf.jpg This time with STAMP mounts - in this picture it is the Ranger 5 on the left, Ranger 7 Mini on the right. http://i.imgur.com/HeIaC4M.jpg Here's the Ranger 5 mounted on my URG-I upper using the STAMP and 51T Blackout. https://i.imgur.com/RpH9q95.jpg Some initial impressions on the Ranger 5 - 1. They aren't kidding that the new 51T adapter locks up tight. It was so tight that I was actually concerned that I'd end up rotating the suppressor body out of the HUB, though this wasn't an actual problem. So far, this seems like a significant improvement. 2. The M4-2000 is notoriously gassy; the Ranger 5's reduced back pressure was noticeable. No, it's not a flow-though can - and reduced back pressure doesn't mean no gas, but it is better. Multi-round strings that would've made my eyes water with the M4-2000 were much more tolerable with the Ranger 5. 3. The Ranger 5 is reportedly a few db louder than the M4-2000 (likely due to the oversized baffles), but I didn't notice much difference. I've only put a few rounds through the Ranger 7 Mini, using the same 5.56mm host. The shorter length and larger bore resulted in a significantly louder can than the Ranger 5. Not unexpected on the 5.56mm gun - but also not the optimal pairing. I'll be trying this can on a more appropriate .300 upper in the future and will report back. Thanks for the report! |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2023 2:45:34 PM EDT
[#6]
I sent in my 2009ish vintage M42000 and got it back in about a month IIRC. It certainly wasn’t any longer than what they estimated.
I’ll echo everybody else in saying I think it is very marginally louder than the M42000 was BUT the reduction in weight and back pressure in comparison are very much worth it. The only thing I have to compare it to currently is a 7.62 rugged radiant. In “long” mode I think the radiant is a little quieter. But the AAC is definitely quieter compared to the Rugged in short/k configuration. I think this AAC upgrade is a good mix of being a little quieter than a super short/light style can but not as long or heavy as it could be. I read the directions and put anti-seize on both sets of threads and to my complete lack of surprise, when I went to take it off after shooting the first time the can unscrewed from the direct thread adapter and the DTA stayed on the rifle. I’ll have to use a wrench to get the DTA off the barrel. Barrel threads were clean but I didn’t use any grease or anti seize on them like the threads on the can itself. I’m not planning on swapping it rifle to rifle so it’s not a big deal to me but figured I’d share that experience. Am I missing something or is there not a specific tool to use with the threaded end cap on their site yet? I have another company’s end cap tool that kiiiind of works on it but not very well. Overall if anyone else is considering it the $730 is highly worth it IMO. |
|
|
|
CT, USA
|
Posted: 12/7/2023 4:06:09 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JSGlock34: I've only put a few rounds through the Ranger 7 Mini, using the same 5.56mm host. The shorter length and larger bore resulted in a significantly louder can than the Ranger 5. Not unexpected on the 5.56mm gun - but also not the optimal pairing. I'll be trying this can on a more appropriate .300 upper in the future and will report back. Answer based on a question I asked about the difference between a Ranger 7 and Mini 7. "In sound dB the mini is 5dB louder at the shooters ear and 7dB louder at the muzzle on a 20" bolt gun using M80 ball ammo." |
|
|
SC, USA
|
Posted: 12/7/2023 4:18:35 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By sdwornicki: I sent in my 2009ish vintage M42000 and got it back in about a month IIRC. It certainly wasn’t any longer than what they estimated. I’ll echo everybody else in saying I think it is very marginally louder than the M42000 was BUT the reduction in weight and back pressure in comparison are very much worth it. The only thing I have to compare it to currently is a 7.62 rugged radiant. In “long” mode I think the radiant is a little quieter. But the AAC is definitely quieter compared to the Rugged in short/k configuration. I think this AAC upgrade is a good mix of being a little quieter than a super short/light style can but not as long or heavy as it could be. I read the directions and put anti-seize on both sets of threads and to my complete lack of surprise, when I went to take it off after shooting the first time the can unscrewed from the direct thread adapter and the DTA stayed on the rifle. I’ll have to use a wrench to get the DTA off the barrel. Barrel threads were clean but I didn’t use any grease or anti seize on them like the threads on the can itself. I’m not planning on swapping it rifle to rifle so it’s not a big deal to me but figured I’d share that experience. Am I missing something or is there not a specific tool to use with the threaded end cap on their site yet? I have another company’s end cap tool that kiiiind of works on it but not very well. Overall if anyone else is considering it the $730 is highly worth it IMO. Interesting... which directions are these? My modified Dual-lok adapter is coming back from ECCO now, so won't be much longer before I can put some rounds through the updated SDN-6-->Ranger 7; I doubt it will be this weekend though. |
|
|
MS, USA
|
Posted: 12/7/2023 4:40:11 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DVCNick: Interesting... which directions are these? My modified Dual-lok adapter is coming back from ECCO now, so won't be much longer before I can put some rounds through the updated SDN-6-->Ranger 7; I doubt it will be this weekend though. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DVCNick: Originally Posted By sdwornicki: I sent in my 2009ish vintage M42000 and got it back in about a month IIRC. It certainly wasn’t any longer than what they estimated. I’ll echo everybody else in saying I think it is very marginally louder than the M42000 was BUT the reduction in weight and back pressure in comparison are very much worth it. The only thing I have to compare it to currently is a 7.62 rugged radiant. In “long” mode I think the radiant is a little quieter. But the AAC is definitely quieter compared to the Rugged in short/k configuration. I think this AAC upgrade is a good mix of being a little quieter than a super short/light style can but not as long or heavy as it could be. I read the directions and put anti-seize on both sets of threads and to my complete lack of surprise, when I went to take it off after shooting the first time the can unscrewed from the direct thread adapter and the DTA stayed on the rifle. I’ll have to use a wrench to get the DTA off the barrel. Barrel threads were clean but I didn’t use any grease or anti seize on them like the threads on the can itself. I’m not planning on swapping it rifle to rifle so it’s not a big deal to me but figured I’d share that experience. Am I missing something or is there not a specific tool to use with the threaded end cap on their site yet? I have another company’s end cap tool that kiiiind of works on it but not very well. Overall if anyone else is considering it the $730 is highly worth it IMO. Interesting... which directions are these? My modified Dual-lok adapter is coming back from ECCO now, so won't be much longer before I can put some rounds through the updated SDN-6-->Ranger 7; I doubt it will be this weekend though. 
|
|
|
SC, USA
|
Posted: 12/7/2023 5:07:13 PM EDT
[#10]
Wow.
I was going to go the other direction and put thread locker; probably Rocksett. Also, I sent my direct thread adapter to ECCO for reference about what the modification should look like, but I'm 95% sure mine isn't actually tapered there. |
|
|
GA, USA
|
Posted: 12/7/2023 7:49:07 PM EDT
[#11]
Has anyone evaluated The flash signature on a ranger 5? I'm trying to figure out whether it is worth it to send an old can in. The new model is apparently not any lighter shorter or quieter when using the qd mount adapter. The reduced blowback is nice but my hosts are set up well enough where it is not intolerable. I think flash performance makes or breaks it for me.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2023 8:54:01 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Calvin118: Has anyone evaluated The flash signature on a ranger 5? I'm trying to figure out whether it is worth it to send an old can in. The new model is apparently not any lighter shorter or quieter when using the qd mount adapter. The reduced blowback is nice but my hosts are set up well enough where it is not intolerable. I think flash performance makes or breaks it for me. That's going to be a tough question to answer as there are so many variables that go into muzzle flash. When I shot a night match with my SDN-6 to R7 can, nobody said anything about the muzzle flash from a 16" 7.62x39 AR... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2023 9:08:06 AM EDT
[#13]
I finally got mine to the range yesterday - so if you plan on using something other than an AAC-made HUB mount, you might need to grind off any lips/extension past the mount threading on the adapter. A factory Dead Air Keymo mount wouldn't seat flush; the little lip past the threading was hitting the internal taper. I need to dress it up a bit more with a bench grinder, but I ground it down until it fit correctly. Looks like ass but I wanted to make it fit before I wanted to make it pretty.
Anyway - no problems at the range. There was a tiny bit of gas but nothing compared to the M4-2000 it used to be. Accuracy/precision was ok at 50 yards (I was zeroing a new optic so didn't really go further than that)- there was a small shift but nothing huge. I gave it a baptism in fire...ammo was mostly Wolf  The "cat pee" smell that Wolf usually leaves behind was really not noticeable; that was one of the sure-fire ways of telling how gassy it was Really happy with it so far. I didn't notice it being any louder than usual; then again the benches where I shoot outdoors are covered so it's always just noisy anyway. The reduced gas in the face however, that was for sure noticed. |
|
|
|
SC, USA
|
Posted: 12/8/2023 9:58:47 AM EDT
[#14]
I doubt muzzle flash is likely to be a good reason to upgrade... as the shooter, I find the muzzle flash at night to be equally a non-factor with just a good flash hider, or any can, using white light... if there are any small differences, it is likely going to be easier to see from the side than as the shooter.
|
|
|
CT, USA
|
Posted: 12/8/2023 11:45:44 AM EDT
[#15]
I haven't shipped a suppressor in a long time. AAC said to use FedEx or UPS. Is there anything special I need to do? Do I just go to a store and tell them it's firearms parts? Pirateship as Hazardous?
|
|
|
MS, USA
|
Posted: 12/8/2023 12:24:02 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Toker_: I haven't shipped a suppressor in a long time. AAC said to use FedEx or UPS. Is there anything special I need to do? Do I just go to a store and tell them it's firearms parts? Pirateship as Hazardous? Once I had my RMA I used UPS when I sent my Halcyon in. Scheduled a pick up. Nothing special. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2023 1:14:08 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Toker_: I haven't shipped a suppressor in a long time. AAC said to use FedEx or UPS. Is there anything special I need to do? Do I just go to a store and tell them it's firearms parts? Pirateship as Hazardous? I've just mailed them via UPS or FedEx and labeled as "machine parts" |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 12/8/2023 5:07:11 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By towerofpower94: I've just mailed them via UPS or FedEx and labeled as "machine parts" Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By towerofpower94: Originally Posted By Toker_: I haven't shipped a suppressor in a long time. AAC said to use FedEx or UPS. Is there anything special I need to do? Do I just go to a store and tell them it's firearms parts? Pirateship as Hazardous? I've just mailed them via UPS or FedEx and labeled as "machine parts" Or “tool,” which it is. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 12/8/2023 5:12:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Nick_Adams]
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Evil_Ed: I finally got mine to the range yesterday - so if you plan on using something other than an AAC-made HUB mount, you might need to grind off any lips/extension past the mount threading on the adapter. A factory Dead Air Keymo mount wouldn't seat flush; the little lip past the threading was hitting the internal taper. I need to dress it up a bit more with a bench grinder, but I ground it down until it fit correctly. Looks like ass but I wanted to make it fit before I wanted to make it pretty. Anyway - no problems at the range. There was a tiny bit of gas but nothing compared to the M4-2000 it used to be. Accuracy/precision was ok at 50 yards (I was zeroing a new optic so didn't really go further than that)- there was a small shift but nothing huge. I gave it a baptism in fire...ammo was mostly Wolf The "cat pee" smell that Wolf usually leaves behind was really not noticeable; that was one of the sure-fire ways of telling how gassy it was Really happy with it so far. I didn't notice it being any louder than usual; then again the benches where I shoot outdoors are covered so it's always just noisy anyway. The reduced gas in the face however, that was for sure noticed. Thanks for the range report. I’m just hoping my M4-2K to R5 conversion locks up (no wobble) tight on the Stamp mount on my 51t FHs. |
|
|
GA, USA
|
Posted: 12/8/2023 5:30:31 PM EDT
[#20]
It should lock up nice and tight with no wobble whatsoever. That was the goal of STAMP when it was conceived back in 2017.
SilentMike Dead Air AAC 1998-2018 |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 12/8/2023 5:32:01 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Atlmike: It should lock up nice and tight with no wobble whatsoever. That was the goal of STAMP when it was conceived back in 2017. SilentMike Dead Air AAC 1998-2018 Great to hear! Thanks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2023 6:58:49 PM EDT
[Last Edit: JSGlock34]
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Toker_: I haven't shipped a suppressor in a long time. AAC said to use FedEx or UPS. Is there anything special I need to do? Do I just go to a store and tell them it's firearms parts? Pirateship as Hazardous? I asked AAC to send me a shipping label and to just bill me for it. FedEx and UPS have changed their policies over the past year about accepting firearms for shipment from private individuals. They will only ship firearms for FFLs (and UPS defines a suppressor as a firearm). Considering I was sending about $1500 in silencers, I did not want any problems. My two cents. Here is the relevant portions of current UPS policy - I'm not sure about FedEx and suppressors. UPS accepts packages containing Firearm Products for shipment only as a contractual service and only from Shippers who are licensed importers, licensed manufacturers, licensed dealers, or licensed collectors (as defined in Title 18, Chapter 44 of the United States Code) to authorized recipients, as outlined in the approved UPS agreement for the transportation of Firearm Products. To transport packages containing Firearm Products, the Shipper must enter into an approved UPS agreement for the transportation of Firearm Products. Any item that meets the definition of a Firearm (including Firearm mufflers or silencers) or a “frame” or “receiver” under federal law (including any partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frame or receiver as defined by 27 CFR § 478.12) must be identified and bear a serial number in satisfaction of the requirements for identifying such items under federal law, including 27 CFR § 478.92 and/or 27 CFR § 479.102, regardless of whether any such items are otherwise exempt from or not subject to identification requirements under applicable law. This prohibition applies even before the effective date of 27 CFR § 478.12. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2023 9:27:13 PM EDT
[#23]
I shipped mine FedEx on Dec 1st from the FedEx Store.
It's been lost until today on what should have been a two day transit. It turned up in Ohio. |
|
|
|
CT, USA
|
Posted: 12/8/2023 10:04:11 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JSGlock34: I asked AAC to send me a shipping label and to just bill me for it. FedEx and UPS have changed their policies over the past year about accepting firearms for shipment from private individuals. They will only ship firearms for FFLs (and UPS defines a suppressor as a firearm). Considering I was sending about $1500 in silencers, I did not want any problems. My two cents. Here is the relevant portions of current UPS policy - I'm not sure about FedEx and suppressors. UPS accepts packages containing Firearm Products for shipment only as a contractual service and only from Shippers who are licensed importers, licensed manufacturers, licensed dealers, or licensed collectors (as defined in Title 18, Chapter 44 of the United States Code) to authorized recipients, as outlined in the approved UPS agreement for the transportation of Firearm Products. To transport packages containing Firearm Products, the Shipper must enter into an approved UPS agreement for the transportation of Firearm Products. Any item that meets the definition of a Firearm (including Firearm mufflers or silencers) or a “frame” or “receiver” under federal law (including any partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frame or receiver as defined by 27 CFR § 478.12) must be identified and bear a serial number in satisfaction of the requirements for identifying such items under federal law, including 27 CFR § 478.92 and/or 27 CFR § 479.102, regardless of whether any such items are otherwise exempt from or not subject to identification requirements under applicable law. This prohibition applies even before the effective date of 27 CFR § 478.12. I haven't had the best experiences with FedEx or UPS, so I'll contact AAC for a label. Last thing I want is for the carrier to hand slap me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2023 11:48:47 AM EDT
[Last Edit: ECCO_Machine]
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Toker_: I haven't had the best experiences with FedEx or UPS, so I'll contact AAC for a label. Last thing I want is for the carrier to hand slap me. The bigger issue is that if you ship against policy and the item is lost or damaged, they'll tell you to kick rocks. It's annoying to deal with on both ends, us having to create & send the label on a firearms account and customers having to take stuff to a hub location. We can thank the administration for that. They put pressure on carriers, banks and insurance companies to squeeze the firearms industry. Our liability insurance premium tripled last year despite zero claims ever, and there are getting to be fewer and fewer financial institutions who will process firearms related transactions. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2023 7:13:35 PM EDT
[#26]
Got the call from AAC today. The 762sd I sent on 12/1 is done and about to be sent back. That's way faster than I expected.
The 51t Stamp Mounts aren't in stock yet so I'll be waiting on that for another couple of weeks. |
|
|
|
CT, USA
|
Posted: 12/11/2023 7:19:09 PM EDT
[#27]
Got a UPS label from AAC, so that should take care of that. Can't wait to see how the Mini 7 performs on 300BLK compared to the 762SDN and Omega 300.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2023 7:43:26 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Toker_: Got a UPS label from AAC, so that should take care of that. Can't wait to see how the Mini 7 performs on 300BLK compared to the 762SDN and Omega 300. I mean it's going to be louder for sure. But taking a couple inches off is a good tradeoff IMO. |
|
|
|
CT, USA
|
Posted: 12/11/2023 9:08:36 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Toker_]
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By vellnueve: I mean it's going to be louder for sure. But taking a couple inches off is a good tradeoff IMO. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By vellnueve: Originally Posted By Toker_: Got a UPS label from AAC, so that should take care of that. Can't wait to see how the Mini 7 performs on 300BLK compared to the 762SDN and Omega 300. I mean it's going to be louder for sure. But taking a couple inches off is a good tradeoff IMO. Agreed, along with the huge reduction in weight. I already have 2x 762SDN and an Omega 300. An Omega 36M is in jail along with another free Omega 300. I didn't see any reason to get a Ranger 7. If I like the Mini 7, I'll probably do the same with my other 762SDN. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2023 11:59:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: vellnueve]
[#30]
Yeah I didn’t dislike my SDN6 at all, it’s just that it was heavier and longer than all my others.
I mainly used it on an AUG and a DD Mk18 as well as a 9” 300 BLK (the old AAC 9” upper with the KAC rail) It was fine but the weight and length defeated the purpose of putting it on such short guns. The Mini 7 will be a much better match for the 300BLK and the AUG… the DD Mk18 now has a Fat Cat on it and it’s basically like almost nothing was added. |
|
|
|
SC, USA
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 6:14:28 PM EDT
[Last Edit: DVCNick]
[#31]
My modified Griffin Dual Lok adapter just got back from ECCO. the work looks very nice as expected, and looks like it seats perfectly in the can now.
Total weight of the Ranger 7 conversion + modified dual lok: 16.4 oz. Exactly 6oz lighter than the SDN-6 I sent off, which had ~3800rds through it. Each muzzle device is at least an oz lighter as well. Checking alignment, looks good on all but one rifle so far... Not sure why but it seems like I've had a rash of misaligning muzzle devices lately, so I guess that one is coming off to go on a different rifle, or try a slightly different torque spec to see if I can get it straight... Hopefully I'll have a chance to put a few rounds through it this weekend. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 7:13:34 PM EDT
[#32]
I have a label to send mine out but my buddy just got his 762SDN6 back and swears it’s louder than before the conversion and also says there is a noticeable flash out of the end of the suppressor. According to him, he’s getting 6 to 8 inches of muzzle flash out of a 16 inch barreled LMTMWS in .308. He did say it definitely has less back pressure. I know sound can be subjective but I trust this guy‘s opinion as he is pretty sharp. I’m still going to send mine out and just hope for the best. His comment about the flash is very surprising.
|
|
|
|
AL, USA
|
Posted: 12/14/2023 7:47:56 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 9mmCarbine: I have a label to send mine out but my buddy just got his 762SDN6 back and swears it’s louder than before the conversion and also says there is a noticeable flash out of the end of the suppressor. According to him, he’s getting 6 to 8 inches of muzzle flash out of a 16 inch barreled LMTMWS in .308. He did say it definitely has less back pressure. I know sound can be subjective but I trust this guy‘s opinion as he is pretty sharp. I’m still going to send mine out and just hope for the best. His comment about the flash is very surprising. This is not the norm for the Ranger stack. Can you have your friend reach out to us? We’d like to check it out. [email protected] - New AAC guy |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2023 1:01:52 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Torozmaster1: This is not the norm for the Ranger stack. Can you have your friend reach out to us? We’d like to check it out. [email protected] - New AAC guy I’ll mention this to him. I figure something isn’t right here, either his assessment or maybe an issue with the can, but I am not worried about the outcome of my restoration job. Thanks for the response. |
|
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 12/16/2023 3:14:38 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Millennial]
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ECCO_Machine: It's the same for us, though we do the recore differently; it's basically our Valkyrie with the serialized tube segment welded over some smaller baffles at the front, making it an unstressed component except in the case of a cap strike. Trying to salvage the 51T mount in a recore forces sticking with the core-in-tube design and is asking for alignment problems, problems which really cannot be corrected. This is a 5.56 SD we just finished that had bad baffle strikes resulting in bulges to the tube, including at the engraving (stamping, as it were). https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/583261/20231006_162156-2987423.jpg https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/583261/20231006_162209-2987424.jpg https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/583261/20231010_100715-2987425.jpg https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/583261/20231010_100722-2987427.jpg Didn't AAC get their pee pee slapped by ATF years ago for doing exactly that; taking another mfg can (Gemtech) and rebuilding it entirely into their own AAC silencer... then running around saying "look how much better we made it, Gemtech cans are terrible" (essentially kicking off the Gemtech/AAC fued). Then the ATF wrote a letter or something about how only the original manufacturer can do that... an SOT can only repair someone else's silencer but couldn't completely rebuild another brand silencer in that manner. So it's one thing if "AAC" is rebuilding an "AAC" silencer, but you're not AAC. ? |
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 12/16/2023 3:49:17 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Millennial]
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JSGlock34: Ranger 5 and 7 Minis are in production. My SDN-6 is coming back as a Ranger 7 Mini... Per AAC - The mini 556 will be 4.96” and 9.8oz. The mini 762 will be 5.23” and 10.8oz. These are weights and size without mounts in them. https://www.instagram.com/p/CvQavFpLdzd/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link I'm on board for a Ranger7 rebuild of my 762-SD (so long... so heavy) but I'm not paying $700 to shed just a little bit of weight & length from my 762-SDN-6. BUT DAT MINI 7 ...  ... 5.38" / 13.0oz with a Rearden Atlas, Oh hell yeah. That would kick so much ass on a Tavor 7 Bullpup. When I get around to it next year, I'm sending both my 762-SD and 762-SDN-6 and getting one of each sent back. And then when I want full .30 suppression I'll just use my Q Full Nelson (they're crazy quiet). Three .30 cans... Three lengths. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2023 7:58:19 PM EDT
[Last Edit: ECCO_Machine]
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Millennial: @ECCO_Machine Didn't AAC get their pee pee slapped by ATF years ago for doing exactly that; taking another mfg can (Gemtech) and rebuilding it entirely into their own AAC silencer... then running around saying "look how much better we made it, Gemtech cans are terrible" (essentially kicking off the Gemtech/AAC fued). Then the ATF wrote a letter or something about how only the original manufacturer can do that... an SOT can only repair someone else's silencer but couldn't completely rebuild another brand silencer in that manner. So it's one thing if "AAC" is rebuilding an "AAC" silencer, but you're not AAC. ? They were engraving brand new cans with the old information, which was at the time allowed by the original manufacturer, but they were doing it with other maker's cans. Gemtech threw a fit and whined to ATF. That's why the inability to replace tubes/primary tube segments without a new stamp is called the Gemtax. And it's why we go to such lengths to preserve that original engraving thus preserving a tax stamp. |
|
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 12/16/2023 8:14:57 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ECCO_Machine: They were engraving brand new cans with the old information, which was at the time allowed by the original manufacturer, but they were doing it with other maker's cans. Gemtech threw a fit and whined to ATF. That's why the inability to replace tubes/primary tube segments without a new stamp is called the Gemtax. And it's why we go to such lengths to preserve that original engraving thus preserving a tax stamp. That's right, now I remember. The Gemtax... fuckin' gemtech. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2023 8:23:36 PM EDT
[Last Edit: towerofpower94]
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Millennial: @ECCO_Machine Didn't AAC get their pee pee slapped by ATF years ago for doing exactly that; taking another mfg can (Gemtech) and rebuilding it entirely into their own AAC silencer... then running around saying "look how much better we made it, Gemtech cans are terrible" (essentially kicking off the Gemtech/AAC fued). Then the ATF wrote a letter or something about how only the original manufacturer can do that... an SOT can only repair someone else's silencer but couldn't completely rebuild another brand silencer in that manner. So it's one thing if "AAC" is rebuilding an "AAC" silencer, but you're not AAC. ? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Millennial: Originally Posted By ECCO_Machine: It's the same for us, though we do the recore differently; it's basically our Valkyrie with the serialized tube segment welded over some smaller baffles at the front, making it an unstressed component except in the case of a cap strike. Trying to salvage the 51T mount in a recore forces sticking with the core-in-tube design and is asking for alignment problems, problems which really cannot be corrected. This is a 5.56 SD we just finished that had bad baffle strikes resulting in bulges to the tube, including at the engraving (stamping, as it were). https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/583261/20231006_162156-2987423.jpg https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/583261/20231006_162209-2987424.jpg https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/583261/20231010_100715-2987425.jpg https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/583261/20231010_100722-2987427.jpg Didn't AAC get their pee pee slapped by ATF years ago for doing exactly that; taking another mfg can (Gemtech) and rebuilding it entirely into their own AAC silencer... then running around saying "look how much better we made it, Gemtech cans are terrible" (essentially kicking off the Gemtech/AAC fued). Then the ATF wrote a letter or something about how only the original manufacturer can do that... an SOT can only repair someone else's silencer but couldn't completely rebuild another brand silencer in that manner. So it's one thing if "AAC" is rebuilding an "AAC" silencer, but you're not AAC. ? I believe that was Gemtech that got slapped, but they were taking cans, crunching them, and putting the SN on a new can. The RestoMod program is maintaining the SN’d portion of the Form’d can and just putting new bits front and back. ETA: NM, it’s been addressed |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2023 8:54:50 PM EDT
[#40]
Mine is supposed to be back in my hands Monday, looking forward to it. But there's still no 51T STAMP mounts to be found. I don't want to switch my mounts because frankly I still think the AAC flash hider is one of the best.
@Torozmaster1 any idea when the STAMP mounts will be shipping back out to retailers:? |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 12/16/2023 9:41:27 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Nick_Adams]
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By vellnueve: Mine is supposed to be back in my hands Monday, looking forward to it. But there's still no 51T STAMP mounts to be found. I don't want to switch my mounts because frankly I still think the AAC flash hider is one of the best. @Torozmaster1 any idea when the STAMP mounts will be shipping back out to retailers:? Yeah, I’m heavily invested in AAC 51t FHs as well. Just received my resto-ed 7.62-SDN-6 back along with the “free” direct thread adapter. The work looks good but was told by the AAC tech who took my c.c. payment that the 51t STAMP mounts aren’t available because they’re waiting on a certain critical part. So STAMPs won’t be in stock for at least a month or so. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2023 10:54:39 PM EDT
[#42]
Just a heads up to those planning to use the ranger 5 with an ASR mount that you have to use the short version on the left. The one on the right wont screw all the way in due to the extension past the threads. Can't remember which can the short version came with though...
 |
|
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 12/16/2023 11:17:38 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TkFF: Just a heads up to those planning to use the ranger 5 with an ASR mount that you have to use the short version on the left. The one on the right wont screw all the way in due to the extension past the threads. Can't remember which can the short version came with though... https://i.ibb.co/7pMGjT1/IMG-3110.jpg 
|
|
|
CT, USA
|
Posted: 12/17/2023 1:40:22 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Toker_]
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TkFF: Just a heads up to those planning to use the ranger 5 with an ASR mount that you have to use the short version on the left. The one on the right wont screw all the way in due to the extension past the threads. Can't remember which can the short version came with though... https://i.ibb.co/7pMGjT1/IMG-3110.jpg I think the short version is from their older silencers. I just bought a few new Bravo mounts and wanted to test the fit with my Omega 300. After I pulled the original one, I noticed it doesn't have the lip of the newer version. 
|
|
|
AL, USA
|
Posted: 12/17/2023 7:59:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Torozmaster1]
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By vellnueve: Mine is supposed to be back in my hands Monday, looking forward to it. But there's still no 51T STAMP mounts to be found. I don't want to switch my mounts because frankly I still think the AAC flash hider is one of the best. @Torozmaster1 any idea when the STAMP mounts will be shipping back out to retailers:? Hopefully first of next year. One part is still on the machine then to coating. We are ready to start building them asap! We apologize to everyone for the delay. - New AAC guy |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 12/17/2023 8:55:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Nick_Adams]
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Torozmaster1: Hopefully first of next year. One part is still on the machine then to coating. We are ready to start building them asap! We apologize to everyone for the delay. - New AAC guy Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Torozmaster1: Originally Posted By vellnueve: Mine is supposed to be back in my hands Monday, looking forward to it. But there's still no 51T STAMP mounts to be found. I don't want to switch my mounts because frankly I still think the AAC flash hider is one of the best. @Torozmaster1 any idea when the STAMP mounts will be shipping back out to retailers:? Hopefully first of next year. One part is still on the machine then to coating. We are ready to start building them asap! We apologize to everyone for the delay. - New AAC guy So it appears my re-cored SDN-6 will be collecting dust until after 1/1/2024.  With all my rifles having 51t FHs, the direct thread adapter that came back with it doesn’t really do me any good. |
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 12/18/2023 11:51:31 AM EDT
[#47]
Ok… guys with the Mini Ranger 7 rebuilds, how are they? What are the published numbers on the Ranger 7 Mini?
I know suppression will suffer but just how bad are they on a 16” .308? Because dropping around 2” and 10oz (depending on configuration) would be HUGE on the already Tavor 7 bullpup. @Torozmaster1 does the direct-thread brake-cap that the Ranger 7 and Ranger 7 Mini rebuilds ship with allow for indexing on the muzzle? The Tavor 7 has a very skinny shoulder, like a FN SCAR, but then also a very long (.730” long) threads because it uses a locknut to time the factory brake. So Tavor 7 owners have to use mounts that either index off the muzzle (like the AAC deep socket mount) or use a FN SCAR shoulder washer… |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2023 11:56:49 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Millennial: Ok… guys with the Mini Ranger 7 rebuilds, how are they? What are the published numbers on the Ranger 7 Mini? I know suppression will suffer but just how bad are they on a 16” .308? Because dropping around 2” and 10oz (depending on configuration) would be HUGE on the already Tavor 7 bullpup. @Torozmaster1 does the direct-thread brake-cap that the Ranger 7 and Ranger 7 Mini rebuilds ship with allow for indexing on the muzzle? The Tavor 7 has a very skinny shoulder, like a FN SCAR, but then also a very long (.730” long) threads because it uses a locknut to time the factory brake. So Tavor 7 owners have to use mounts that either index off the muzzle (like the AAC deep socket mount) or use a FN SCAR shoulder washer… This is what AAC sent me regarding the mini... On a bolt action 308 20" barrel using standard M80 ball ammo this is the findings. Ranger 7 139.15 dB muzzle left A-weight 49.68 impulse 128.37 dB shooter's ear A-weight Ranger 7 Mini 146.91 dB muzzle left A-weight 117.08 Impulse 132.23 dB shooters ear A-weight |
|
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 12/18/2023 6:55:31 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By miker84: This is what AAC sent me regarding the mini... On a bolt action 308 20" barrel using standard M80 ball ammo this is the findings. Ranger 7 139.15 dB muzzle left A-weight 49.68 impulse 128.37 dB shooter's ear A-weight Ranger 7 Mini 146.91 dB muzzle left A-weight 117.08 Impulse 132.23 dB shooters ear A-weight So about 7.8dB worse at the muzzle and 3.9dB worse at the ear… on a 20” bolt gun. Call it a just hunch, but I’m going to guess the numbers get a lot worse on a 16” bullpup; with the muzzle close your face and the ejection port tucked under your ear… I mean, I’m not looking for amazing suppression either. I’m being realistic here. A lot like my TurboK on a 10.3” MK18 … I just want to be able to use the Tavor (while preserving the essence of the gun’s inherent compactness) in a SD/SHTF situation if needed or larp around and dump a mag or two without completely disorienting myself and hearing EEeEeeeee for the next 2 days. If I can get ~20dB NSR at the muzzle from a Ranger 7 Mini on the Tavor, that’s probably good enough to suit my needs. |
|
|
SC, USA
|
Posted: 12/18/2023 7:43:12 PM EDT
[Last Edit: DVCNick]
[#50]
I shot 153rds through my converted Ranger 7 today. Gun was a BCM 9" 300blk. 20 subs, the rest supers.
All today were from a bench/under a roof, so I'll reserve final judgement on the sound as it does get a little different under there vs. what I perceive normally all the way outdoors. The total of 7oz weight reduction (dryfiring/swinging the gun around of course) and backpressure reduction are very noticeable. 100% no doubt big improvements. The 4:00 ejection pattern doesn't even change with the can on. Length for me with the Dual lok adapter turns out within 1/4" of where it was before... that's a wash for me. It will be shorter if you use the direct thread or similar. My initial impression of the sound is that it is about the same as before, but like I said... I want to shoot it under the sky before forming a final opinion on that. I took the can on and off several times to check zero shift and repeatability as much as I can with the blasting ammo I brought today. This may be a function of the new mount as well, but after several back to back 10rd groups, taking the can on and off, I detect NO POI shift that is repeatable or significant enough to make me note it so far with the can on or off. That is a first for me. I'll be trying that with better ammo asap, as the blasting ammo I had with me today is on the order of 4MOA. So far to me it looks like all improvements and no downsides... will shoot it with different guns and better ammo asap. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
