User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/22/2023 4:12:59 PM EDT
I remember these costing almost $2000 back during the AAC 1.0 days and being a pretty obscure suppressor. Now they are everywhere for $950 or less but there doesn’t seem to be any info on them out there.
How fragile are they? I see the test rifle is a 20” 300 win mag but they are recommended for bolt guns only. Is that due to the Ti construction not dealing well with heat or something else? How much back pressure do they generate? I’m having a hard time not FOing on one is these for my SCAR 20. Any info or person experience is appreciated. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2023 4:41:58 PM EDT
[#1]
OTB or are they just long?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2023 4:44:37 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: OTB or are they just long? 9.5” long 15oz Takes the 90 tooth mounts 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2023 5:17:43 PM EDT
[#3]
The Mk-13’s are very robust. They were designed for bolt gun use, so back pressure was never a design consideration. They rarely, if ever, came back for repair.
SilentMike Dead Air AAC 1.0 1997-2018 |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2023 5:39:40 PM EDT
[#4]
I have a 300TM, which I think is the same construction, but direct thread. It’s light and I’ve had good service out of it.
I have had it on a bolt gun and a Handi-Rifle. So, I can’t really speak to the back pressure. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2023 5:51:28 PM EDT
[#5]
The Mk-13 uses five scalloped, slanted baffles with no real coaxial volume or venting. Interestingly, the first ones were made by turning down cores for the Titan .338 can to fit in a smaller diameter envelope. They are great bolt gun cans.
SilentMike Dead Air AAC 1.0 1998-2018 |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2023 6:16:40 PM EDT
[#6]
Thanks for the responses guys
Quote HistoryQuoted: The Mk-13 uses five scalloped, slanted baffles with no real coaxial volume or venting. Interestingly, the first ones were made by turning down cores for the Titan .338 can to fit in a smaller diameter envelope. They are great bolt gun cans. SilentMike Dead Air AAC 1.0 1998-2018 Do you think I’d have issues running one on a SCAR 20? I have no issues swapping gas jets if necessary. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2023 7:08:21 PM EDT
[#7]
If you can get the gun gassed right, it should make an excellent precision rifle can. The baffles are pretty thick, but try to abide by the general rules of Ti and let it cool down in between “vigorous” strings of fire.
SilentMike Dead Air AAC 1.0 1998-2018 |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2023 7:40:06 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If you can get the gun gassed right, it should make an excellent precision rifle can. The baffles are pretty thick, but try to abide by the general rules of Ti and let it cool down in between “vigorous” strings of fire. SilentMike Dead Air AAC 1.0 1998-2018 Perfect. It’s my precision gas gun so no vigorous strings of fire. Ideally it’s locate, range, engage…hit. Move to the next target. In real life it’s located, range, engage…miss, miss, miss….hit. Move to the next target. So it should work for what I want it to do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2023 8:15:46 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Perfect. It’s my precision gas gun so no vigorous strings of fire. Ideally it’s locate, range, engage…hit. Move to the next target. In real life it’s located, range, engage…miss, miss, miss….hit. Move to the next target. So it should work for what I want it to do. AAC and their ratchet system sucks for accuracy if my experience and research proves right.... aac= the suck. find a better company to buy a lifetime commitment from. I will NEVER buy another aac suppressor again.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2023 8:26:56 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: AAC and their ratchet system sucks for accuracy if my experience and research proves right.... aac= the suck. find a better company to buy a lifetime commitment from. I will NEVER buy another aac suppressor again.... Our last podcast guest was a two time International Sniper Competition Competitor/ Army Sniper who went to school with those cans and he had some unsolicited comments about his negative experience with them. If memory serves me correctly the issues he mentioned were pretty common in his sniper course, were accuracy issues. https://www.podbean.com/media/share/dir-ciqqp-171b5f6d?utm_campaign=w_share_ep&utm_medium=dlink&utm_source=w_share |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2023 8:44:52 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Our last podcast guest was a two time International Sniper Competition Competitor/ Army Sniper who went to school with those cans and he had some unsolicited comments about his negative experience with them. If memory serves me correctly the issues he mentioned were pretty common in his sniper course, were accuracy issues. https://www.podbean.com/media/share/dir-ciqqp-171b5f6d?utm_campaign=w_share_ep&utm_medium=dlink&utm_source=w_share Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: AAC and their ratchet system sucks for accuracy if my experience and research proves right.... aac= the suck. find a better company to buy a lifetime commitment from. I will NEVER buy another aac suppressor again.... Our last podcast guest was a two time International Sniper Competition Competitor/ Army Sniper who went to school with those cans and he had some unsolicited comments about his negative experience with them. If memory serves me correctly the issues he mentioned were pretty common in his sniper course, were accuracy issues. https://www.podbean.com/media/share/dir-ciqqp-171b5f6d?utm_campaign=w_share_ep&utm_medium=dlink&utm_source=w_share I’ll have to give it a listen. I find it hard to believe NSW/crane/socom or whoever was responsible for selecting suppressors for the Mk13 didn’t have any kind of accuracy requirement. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2023 9:14:00 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I’ll have to give it a listen. I find it hard to believe NSW/crane/socom or whoever was responsible for selecting suppressors for the Mk13 didn’t have any kind of accuracy requirement. I was a little surprised to hear the cans were wearing out and causing accuracy issues on bolt guns, but then .300Win mag isn't a low power round either and guns can get to high round counts in that environment. I think the XM2010 was selected by the Army. So I don't think Socom was involved. Wikipedia says Picatinny Arsenal PEO soldier (Program Executive Office Soldier) did the selection. https://www.army.mil/article/45970/army-awards-contract-for-upgraded-sniper-weapon-system/ Remington makes sense as the Army Sniper program was essentially using Remington as the go to company, and Leupold for optics since the 80's. AAC was owned by Remington at that point, giving Remington an incentive to use AAC for the suppressors. Previous to that, all Remington sniper rifles using suppressors had used Ops Inc suppressors, with maybe the exception of 25th ID which got Surefire suppressors on some 300 win mag converted AICS equipped M24 upgrade/retrofit rifles. The original accuracy requirement for the XM2010 was 1MOA at 200meters. ~2.094" at 200meters, for the brand new XM2010 rifles. 1MOA represents 3 times the group size of the M24, and would have been considered shot out for an M24 in .308. The original accuracy requirement for the 7.62X51 M24 was .35MOA for 10,000 rounds, and apparently a few were tested and found to hold that at 20,000 rounds. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2023 9:33:27 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I’ll have to give it a listen. I find it hard to believe NSW/crane/socom or whoever was responsible for selecting suppressors for the Mk13 didn’t have any kind of accuracy requirement. Would you believe that contracts may not always issued to the best performer? My experience is clearly my own and I am not an operator or even a decent shooter. AAC burned me and I hope to share the good news of encouraging others to learn from my sufferings. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2023 9:46:01 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: AAC and their ratchet system sucks for accuracy if my experience and research proves right.... aac= the suck. find a better company to buy a lifetime commitment from. I will NEVER buy another aac suppressor again.... We can fix that, but unless it were a killer deal, it wouldn't make any sense to buy a can you know is going to need converted rather than just starting with one that has a good mounting system or is threaded industry standard 1.375-24. We've had a number of Mk13s and 300 TMs through for conversion, but I've never actually put rounds through one, so I can't comment to their efficacy or effects on precision. Also not that light for a TI can, IMO. 1.5 x 9.5" and 15 ounces, while the 1.5 x 9.0" TBAC Ultra 9 is 10 ounces in CB trim, and we were able to get our 1.6 x 9.0" Accipiter .30 to come in at 10.2 ounces without mount, which is not exactly a lightly built can, either; able to take .300 RUM. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2023 9:52:31 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I was a little surprised to hear the cans were wearing out and causing accuracy issues on bolt guns, but then .300Win mag isn't a low power round either and guns can get to high round counts in that environment. I think the XM2010 was selected by the Army. So I don't think Socom was involved. Wikipedia says Picatinny Arsenal PEO soldier (Program Executive Office Soldier) did the selection. https://www.army.mil/article/45970/army-awards-contract-for-upgraded-sniper-weapon-system/ Remington makes sense as the Army Sniper program was essentially using Remington as the go to company, and Leupold for optics since the 80's. AAC was owned by Remington at that point. Previous to that, all Remington sniper rifles using suppressors had used Ops Inc suppressors, with maybe the exception of 25th ID which got Surefire suppressors on some 300 win mag converted AICS equipped M24 upgrade/retrofit rifles. The original accuracy requirement for the XM2010 was 1MOA at 200meters. ~2.094" at 200meters, for the brand new XM2010 rifles. 1MOA represents 3 times the group size of the M24, and would have been considered shot out for an M24 in .308. The original accuracy requirement for the 7.62X51 M24 was .35MOA for 10,000 rounds, and apparently a few were tested and found to hold that at 20,000 rounds. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I’ll have to give it a listen. I find it hard to believe NSW/crane/socom or whoever was responsible for selecting suppressors for the Mk13 didn’t have any kind of accuracy requirement. I was a little surprised to hear the cans were wearing out and causing accuracy issues on bolt guns, but then .300Win mag isn't a low power round either and guns can get to high round counts in that environment. I think the XM2010 was selected by the Army. So I don't think Socom was involved. Wikipedia says Picatinny Arsenal PEO soldier (Program Executive Office Soldier) did the selection. https://www.army.mil/article/45970/army-awards-contract-for-upgraded-sniper-weapon-system/ Remington makes sense as the Army Sniper program was essentially using Remington as the go to company, and Leupold for optics since the 80's. AAC was owned by Remington at that point. Previous to that, all Remington sniper rifles using suppressors had used Ops Inc suppressors, with maybe the exception of 25th ID which got Surefire suppressors on some 300 win mag converted AICS equipped M24 upgrade/retrofit rifles. The original accuracy requirement for the XM2010 was 1MOA at 200meters. ~2.094" at 200meters, for the brand new XM2010 rifles. 1MOA represents 3 times the group size of the M24, and would have been considered shot out for an M24 in .308. The original accuracy requirement for the 7.62X51 M24 was .35MOA for 10,000 rounds, and apparently a few were tested and found to hold that at 20,000 rounds. I don’t know anything about the xm2010. I figured the Mk13 was a Navy thing that maybe saw wider adoption. I know they started with the KAC reflex suppressor and then by the time they got to mod whatever they ended up with the Surefire, not sure exactly when and how the AAC slotted in there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2023 9:53:59 PM EDT
[#16]
It would be fair to say a can surviving limited .300 win mag exposure, and enduring thousands of rounds a year for several years are two different metrics and aren't necessarily identical properties. In defense of the 15 ounce weight.
Quoted: I don’t know anything about the xm2010. I figured the Mk13 was a Navy thing that maybe saw wider adoption. I know they started with the KAC reflex suppressor and then by the time they got to mod whatever they ended up with the Surefire, not sure exactly when and how the AAC slotted in there. With the SR25 intended, MK11 cans that Crane re-purposed for the MK13's failing at the rear tube spot welds in as few as 65 rounds, and flying downrange, probably anything else looked like an attractive alternative to take the MK13's out of unserviceable condition and restore them to field ready. So if the AAC's were used for a limited time (which is difficult to find much record of), it probably doesn't guaranty excellence, so much as it implies better fitness for the MK13, than the MK11 cans. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2023 10:43:24 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: AAC and their ratchet system sucks for accuracy if my experience and research proves right.... aac= the suck. find a better company to buy a lifetime commitment from. I will NEVER buy another aac suppressor again.... Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Perfect. It’s my precision gas gun so no vigorous strings of fire. Ideally it’s locate, range, engage…hit. Move to the next target. In real life it’s located, range, engage…miss, miss, miss….hit. Move to the next target. So it should work for what I want it to do. AAC and their ratchet system sucks for accuracy if my experience and research proves right.... aac= the suck. find a better company to buy a lifetime commitment from. I will NEVER buy another aac suppressor again.... That’s simply not true. In the solicitation for this can, it met accuracy requirements that included removal and re-mounting. I have that exact can and have used it on 5 different rifles with no accuracy loss. It has a consistent .8 MOA shift from suppressed to UN suppressed…which is in line with my Surefire cans. Crane tested the AAC can and validated it. The 416 that shot UBL in the face was wearing a AAC can and mount. The AAC 90t mounts are fine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/23/2023 9:01:34 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The 416 that shot UBL in the face was wearing a AAC can and mount. Quote HistoryQuoted: The 416 that shot UBL in the face was wearing a AAC can and mount. To be be fair, he was shot at 8 feet not 800yds with that particular setup Quoted: I’ll have to give it a listen. I find it hard to believe NSW/crane/socom or whoever was responsible for selecting suppressors for the Mk13 didn’t have any kind of accuracy requirement. I think it was Marcus Luttrell in his book talking about accuracy and suppressors that shifted on the barrels. Might’ve been Chris Kyle but I think it was in Line Survivor. Definitely not the OPS can but probably NT4s |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/23/2023 11:47:18 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That’s simply not true. In the solicitation for this can, it met accuracy requirements that included removal and re-mounting. I have that exact can and have used it on 5 different rifles with no accuracy loss. It has a consistent .8 MOA shift from suppressed to UN suppressed…which is in line with my Surefire cans. Crane tested the AAC can and validated it. The 416 that shot UBL in the face was wearing a AAC can and mount. The AAC 90t mounts are fine. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Perfect. It’s my precision gas gun so no vigorous strings of fire. Ideally it’s locate, range, engage…hit. Move to the next target. In real life it’s located, range, engage…miss, miss, miss….hit. Move to the next target. So it should work for what I want it to do. AAC and their ratchet system sucks for accuracy if my experience and research proves right.... aac= the suck. find a better company to buy a lifetime commitment from. I will NEVER buy another aac suppressor again.... That’s simply not true. In the solicitation for this can, it met accuracy requirements that included removal and re-mounting. I have that exact can and have used it on 5 different rifles with no accuracy loss. It has a consistent .8 MOA shift from suppressed to UN suppressed…which is in line with my Surefire cans. Crane tested the AAC can and validated it. The 416 that shot UBL in the face was wearing a AAC can and mount. The AAC 90t mounts are fine. @FedDC of those 5 rifles were any of them gas guns? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/23/2023 12:08:20 PM EDT
[#20]
The solicitation for the MK 13 can was a precision rifle based can in 300 win mag. That’s what it was built around. Anything else might work or might not…but it’s not part of the test criteria.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/23/2023 5:12:57 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: To be be fair, he was shot at 8 feet not 800yds with that particular setup I think it was Marcus Luttrell in his book talking about accuracy and suppressors that shifted on the barrels. Might’ve been Chris Kyle but I think it was in Line Survivor. Definitely not the OPS can but probably NT4s The NT4 definitely cause(d)(s) a notable but repeatable POI shift. Not a big deal, though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/23/2023 5:29:34 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The NT4 definitely cause(d)(s) a notable but repeatable POI shift. Not a big deal, though. The NT4 was awesome...but odd. It was truly advanced for its time. It had a ton of engineered features to meet the durability spec...so much so that it ended up with a relatively large bore and uber thick baffles. The can is/was so durable that a lot of them ended up on SAWs and were made to glow numerous times with no real damage. That's an insane level of durability. Plus, you could easily remove it...sometimes too easy. It is heavy...kinda loud...and has POI shift, but it was hell for stout. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/23/2023 5:37:05 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The NT4 was awesome...but odd. It was truly advanced for its time. It had a ton of engineered features to meet the durability spec...so much so that it ended up with a relatively large bore and uber thick baffles. The can is/was so durable that a lot of them ended up on SAWs and were made to glow numerous times with no real damage. That's an insane level of durability. Plus, you could easily remove it...sometimes too easy. It is heavy...kinda loud...and has POI shift, but it was hell for stout. Yup. I’ve used them on a Mk46, complete with glowing, and no noticeable damage. I think I remember my POI shift for a M4 was like ten inches, 12 o’clock. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2023 7:17:24 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The solicitation for the MK 13 can was a precision rifle based can in 300 win mag. That’s what it was built around. Anything else might work or might not…but it’s not part of the test criteria. I understand, just hoping someone had first had experience with it on a gas gun. I’ll know if it works in about a year and report back. Thanks to everyone for all the good info. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2023 12:17:41 AM EDT
[#25]
I have one. It generates a lot of backpressure and per AACs own documents is not suitable for gas-operated firearms. The SCAR17s gas issues would make this probably an aweful choice for the platform.
It does perform very well on bolt actions, both in terms of accuracy and sound suppression. All of my precision rifles burp some gas out of the chamber when ejecting a spent case-- but I did notice the mk13 seems to hold the gas in the bore for longer then say a thunderbeast 7. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2023 10:23:46 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I have one. It generates a lot of backpressure and per AACs own documents is not suitable for gas-operated firearms. The SCAR17s gas issues would make this probably an aweful choice for the platform. It does perform very well on bolt actions, both in terms of accuracy and sound suppression. All of my precision rifles burp some gas out of the chamber when ejecting a spent case-- but I did notice the mk13 seems to hold the gas in the bore for longer then say a thunderbeast 7. What “gas issues” would that be? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2023 12:42:20 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yup. I’ve used them on a Mk46, complete with glowing, and no noticeable damage. I think I remember my POI shift for a M4 was like ten inches, 12 o’clock. Thats a pretty large shift. I shim mounted (per the manual) one on a 16” heavy fluted, free floated rifle and my shift was 2.5-3moa to six oclock (low) at 100meters. I do remember it opened groups from about 1-1.25 moa to ~2.5-3moa, and that my first group put two eyes and three or four more rounds into a smiley face arc under the “eyes” as the can rotated shot to shot on the mount, and that performance was a little underwhelming for a fairly accurate rifle with a leupold 2-8spr optic. It seemed to throw rounds with the current latest axial position of the can as it radially indexed a bit differently with every shot fired. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2023 7:32:54 PM EDT
[#28]
How similar/different is the mk13 to the titan?
Didn't know the Titan was monocore 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2023 7:38:37 PM EDT
[#29]
The first of the Mk-13's were made by taking Titan cores and turning them down to the smaller diameter. Most of the coax from the Titan cores was lost, but the baffle shape and spacing was identical.
SilentMike Dead Air AAC 1.0 1998-2018 |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2023 9:06:22 PM EDT
[#30]
I have a Titan that is exclusively shot on a .30. I don’t have dB numbers or anything empirical, but I’ve shot thousands (and/or heard 10s of thousands) of rounds of .300WM fired through them.
Don’t let the monocore scare you. I know all the cool kids say monocore=bad, but they’re stupid and just repeat what they saw their YouTube say. The tone of the Titan and MK13 are exquisite. The pitch is low (low (LOW)), and the after-exit pressure release (there’s probably a technical term for that but I’m just a knuckle-dragger) is so long that you get a very discernible and distinct WHUMP and HISSSSS… Its signature is fucking divine. If Hollywood wasn’t so gay, instead of the pew-pew lispy sound we all know from the movies, the quintessential silencer sound would have been that of the TiTan/Mk13SD. SilentMike could tell you how much changed between the TiTan and the Mk13, but my ears mysteriously self-lubricate whenever I hear either of them. WHUMP HISSSSSSS…. WHUMP HISSSSSSSS…. Just buy the damned thing. It’s silencer art. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2023 10:54:17 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How similar/different is the mk13 to the titan? Didn't know the Titan was monocore https://i.imgur.com/hSiKOKph.jpg That looks like a giant Prodigy core! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2023 4:01:10 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Thats a pretty large shift. I shim mounted (per the manual) one on a 16” heavy fluted, free floated rifle and my shift was 2.5-3moa to six oclock (low) at 100meters. I do remember it opened groups from about 1-1.25 moa to ~2.5-3moa, and that my first group put two eyes and three or four more rounds into a smiley face arc under the “eyes” as the can rotated shot to shot on the mount, and that performance was a little underwhelming for a fairly accurate rifle with a leupold 2-8spr optic. It seemed to throw rounds with the current latest axial position of the can as it radially indexed a bit differently with every shot fired. Could just be my piss-poor memory, too. This was on a Block I, with its stupid barrel profile. I can confirm that the Titan works well. I never would have known it was a mono. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2023 9:42:48 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What “gas issues” would that be? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I have one. It generates a lot of backpressure and per AACs own documents is not suitable for gas-operated firearms. The SCAR17s gas issues would make this probably an aweful choice for the platform. It does perform very well on bolt actions, both in terms of accuracy and sound suppression. All of my precision rifles burp some gas out of the chamber when ejecting a spent case-- but I did notice the mk13 seems to hold the gas in the bore for longer then say a thunderbeast 7. What “gas issues” would that be? A lot of folks have had issues with bolt breakage when running suppressed and have had issues with FN denying the warranty. I seem to recall the AAC SCAR-H SD had some issues in military service on the rifle as well. I agree on the tone and suppression of the mk13. I've shot it on 308, 6.5cm, and 6cm. The 6CM wasnt being picked up by the PACT shot timer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2023 11:35:58 PM EDT
[#34]
To say the SCAR H can was problematic is a understatement of epic proportions.
By the time we started working on the SCAR H (Now called the SCAR 17), most of the base host was locked in and could not be changed. The gas regulator was locked in before we had ever designed a can for the gun. The resulting cantilevered can had too much back pressure and over drove the rifle, leading to malfunctions and broken components. There was no time to refine the design. FN in Belgium figured it out. They had us drill 8 holes in the coaxial volume over the barrel. 8 very precisely sized and located holes. This dropped the pressure down so that the gun ran and did not break. There were a few problems with this direction. The main issue was the 8 plumes of fire sprouting from those holes. Every time you pulled the trigger it was like you were telexing the enemy "Here-I-Am", "Here-I-Am", "Here-I-Am". For three or four years after we delivered those cans, I'd be at a trade show and would have a couple of compact, fit, young guys with great tans and beards ask me general questions. Eventually, talk would come around to the SCAR H cans and those 8 f*&king holes and why they were there. All I could say was "sorry!". And I meant it. The other issue revolved around the ammo used at the time. It generated a lot of particulate matter that was the size and shape of aquarium gravel. Guess where the gas pushed the "gravel"? Into the 8 holes and blocked them! The can got quieter, with better flash characteristics, but the gun suffered. The FN SCAR episode was neither mine, nor AAC's, finest hour. But it did set the stage for better things and successes to come....... SilentMike Dead Air AAC 1.0 1998-2018 |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/5/2023 12:21:04 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: To say the SCAR H can was problematic is a understatement of epic proportions. By the time we started working on the SCAR H (Now called the SCAR 17), most of the base host was locked in and could not be changed. The gas regulator was locked in before we had ever designed a can for the gun. The resulting cantilevered can had too much back pressure and over drove the rifle, leading to malfunctions and broken components. There was no time to refine the design. FN in Belgium figured it out. They had us drill 8 holes in the coaxial volume over the barrel. 8 very precisely sized and located holes. This dropped the pressure down so that the gun ran and did not break. There were a few problems with this direction. The main issue was the 8 plumes of fire sprouting from those holes. Every time you pulled the trigger it was like you were telexing the enemy "Here-I-Am", "Here-I-Am", "Here-I-Am". For three or four years after we delivered those cans, I'd be at a trade show and would have a couple of compact, fit, young guys with great tans and beards ask me general questions. Eventually, talk would come around to the SCAR H cans and those 8 f*&king holes and why they were there. All I could say was "sorry!". And I meant it. The other issue revolved around the ammo used at the time. It generated a lot of particulate matter that was the size and shape of aquarium gravel. Guess where the gas pushed the "gravel"? Into the 8 holes and blocked them! The can got quieter, with better flash characteristics, but the gun suffered. The FN SCAR episode was neither mine, nor AAC's, finest hour. But it did set the stage for better things and successes to come....... SilentMike Dead Air AAC 1.0 1998-2018 This is the best history lesson I’ve had in a while |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/5/2023 12:34:50 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: To say the SCAR H can was problematic is a understatement of epic proportions. By the time we started working on the SCAR H (Now called the SCAR 17), most of the base host was locked in and could not be changed. The gas regulator was locked in before we had ever designed a can for the gun. The resulting cantilevered can had too much back pressure and over drove the rifle, leading to malfunctions and broken components. There was no time to refine the design. FN in Belgium figured it out. They had us drill 8 holes in the coaxial volume over the barrel. 8 very precisely sized and located holes. This dropped the pressure down so that the gun ran and did not break. There were a few problems with this direction. The main issue was the 8 plumes of fire sprouting from those holes. Every time you pulled the trigger it was like you were telexing the enemy "Here-I-Am", "Here-I-Am", "Here-I-Am". For three or four years after we delivered those cans, I'd be at a trade show and would have a couple of compact, fit, young guys with great tans and beards ask me general questions. Eventually, talk would come around to the SCAR H cans and those 8 f*&king holes and why they were there. All I could say was "sorry!". And I meant it. The other issue revolved around the ammo used at the time. It generated a lot of particulate matter that was the size and shape of aquarium gravel. Guess where the gas pushed the "gravel"? Into the 8 holes and blocked them! The can got quieter, with better flash characteristics, but the gun suffered. The FN SCAR episode was neither mine, nor AAC's, finest hour. But it did set the stage for better things and successes to come....... SilentMike Dead Air AAC 1.0 1998-2018 Thanks! I didnt want to speak to things I cant remember accurately so I left it pretty vague. Last thing I'd want to hear is OP having to replace a bolt or stamped can. The gas plug part makes sense. With a modified gas plug port diameter the problem should be resolvable? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/5/2023 11:42:11 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They had us drill 8 holes in the coaxial volume over the barrel. 8 very precisely sized and located holes. This dropped the pressure down so that the gun ran and did not break. There were a few problems with this direction. The main issue was the 8 plumes of fire sprouting from those holes. Every time you pulled the trigger it was like you were telexing the enemy "Here-I-Am", "Here-I-Am", "Here-I-Am". I would love to see a picture of this if you have one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/5/2023 3:03:42 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: A lot of folks have had issues with bolt breakage when running suppressed and have had issues with FN denying the warranty. I seem to recall the AAC SCAR-H SD had some issues in military service on the rifle as well. I agree on the tone and suppression of the mk13. I've shot it on 308, 6.5cm, and 6cm. The 6CM wasnt being picked up by the PACT shot timer. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: I have one. It generates a lot of backpressure and per AACs own documents is not suitable for gas-operated firearms. The SCAR17s gas issues would make this probably an aweful choice for the platform. It does perform very well on bolt actions, both in terms of accuracy and sound suppression. All of my precision rifles burp some gas out of the chamber when ejecting a spent case-- but I did notice the mk13 seems to hold the gas in the bore for longer then say a thunderbeast 7. What “gas issues” would that be? A lot of folks have had issues with bolt breakage when running suppressed and have had issues with FN denying the warranty. I seem to recall the AAC SCAR-H SD had some issues in military service on the rifle as well. I agree on the tone and suppression of the mk13. I've shot it on 308, 6.5cm, and 6cm. The 6CM wasnt being picked up by the PACT shot timer. I’ve got no issues with changing gas jets and couldn’t care less about potentially voiding the warranty. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/5/2023 3:04:35 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I have a Titan that is exclusively shot on a .30. I don’t have dB numbers or anything empirical, but I’ve shot thousands (and/or heard 10s of thousands) of rounds of .300WM fired through them. Don’t let the monocore scare you. I know all the cool kids say monocore=bad, but they’re stupid and just repeat what they saw their YouTube say. The tone of the Titan and MK13 are exquisite. The pitch is low (low (LOW)), and the after-exit pressure release (there’s probably a technical term for that but I’m just a knuckle-dragger) is so long that you get a very discernible and distinct WHUMP and HISSSSS… Its signature is fucking divine. If Hollywood wasn’t so gay, instead of the pew-pew lispy sound we all know from the movies, the quintessential silencer sound would have been that of the TiTan/Mk13SD. SilentMike could tell you how much changed between the TiTan and the Mk13, but my ears mysteriously self-lubricate whenever I hear either of them. WHUMP HISSSSSSS…. WHUMP HISSSSSSSS…. Just buy the damned thing. It’s silencer art. I did. I’ll see what all the hype is about in 10 months. |
|
|
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.
