Not finding much info on AB Suppressor (looks like CZ rebrands them) https://www.absuppressor.com
Originally I was looking at a Hyperion due to great reviews but this AB had one great review https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUDwCC0oGHs&t=1201s

Anyone know more about this AB/CZ?  Last time I bought a can it was right before AAC Tirant and Opsrey gamechangers came out...I'd like to get the best this time

I filled out their contact for to inquire about dealers and received a call quickly. Sounds like they've talked to dealers near me but they are slow to commit due to ammo shortage. In the name of saving me a transfer fee, he said he'd relay to the potential dealers they have a buyer..so immediate money in their pocket.

Bit gun shy to be a guinea pig, but I may do it..

What you're comparing the Hyperion to isn't even remotely in the same ballpark.



There isn't one. And once Jay tests it again on 308 without using the Hyperion Thread Adapter it'll very, very likely be rated even quieter for 308. Look at the 6.5CM test which was done without the Hyperion Thread Adapter, only other variance is the 2" longer barrel.

@TOOL1075 will be able to get to that at some point.

I have been summoned. Ha!

Josh is referring to the fact the Hyperion data on my website is using the muzzle thread adapter (as indicated in the article); the Hyperion I tested had the pre-retail shoulder interface that was a little too big for the shoulder of the Savage .308 test host, so I had to use the adapter. The retail Hyperions fit on smaller shoulders just fine.

So, a result of that mounting difference may have been different sound signature. When I get the retail Hyperion to test, and test it on .308 again, it is possible that it is quieter due to the location of gas injection without the adapter.

The Hyperion design results in radical gas dynamic shifts when the gas injection location is changed. This has been observed by PEW Science and CGS R&D.

This reflex stuff - yeah, I'm sure I'll test it eventually.

Jay
PEW Science

The CZ cans were abject failures.  
So now AB who was probably the OEM marking on a variance, is taking over the sales side.

Comparing an unproven design, or in this case a product that was attempted and failed at grasping even 1 % of the market to a highly tested and reviewed can like the Hyperion is asinine.  

Put more simply these two are not even in the same sport. You might as well be comparing a gas block to the Hyperion.

the responses seem pretty direct. I understand reflex is an old term..thinking of Ops Inc concrete cans, but that means NFA Review and Gun Collective who reviewed the cans are blowing smoke...is that a safe conclusion then? I don't know the guys so maybe they were paid reviews?

Nail half way in the coffin.

apparently AB used to be AeroCharger Ballistics - a division(?) of Aerocharger who apparently makes turbo chargers and whatnot...not much is found about them as a silencer mfg. Their turbo division however has a lot of military contracts and is even used in drones now, so they understand turbo's it seems.

Edit - found this, CZ words it as they were the driving force for Aerocharger suppressor creation - https://www.instagram.com/p/BcAamgsnJC7/?taken-by=czusafirearms

I don't think there's any way these two companies compare.  The AB one compares themselves to the Sandman-K to make themselves look good.

Our Snipers use AB suppressors.  They are local.   The feedback had been great.    Very minimal POI shift and they sound good.

Judging a product based on how many people bought it seems... a little unscientific?

I get Maxim's design was similar, not the same but similar. I also understand anew design is ridiculed until it is mainstream, reference OSS...so much BS was mentioned about OSS but now I see they are talked about positively.

Taking a design and making it "tubeless" doesn't make a design new. Generic reflex is over a century old, generic curved baffles are over a century old. "Flow through" type silencers are also over 100 years old, they were just marketed to people as being new and unique because most people don't know anything about silencer prior art or patent history. Even many patent examiners don't check for stuff properly and mistakenly grant patents.

Science ain’t got shit to do with it.

Manufacturers need to make money.
Wholesalers need to make money.
Dealers need to make money.  

This is the reason OSS has been through 4-5 ownership changes.  

But thanks for playing.

The guy is trying to decide whether to buy option 1 or option 2.

You basically said "don't buy option 1 because nobody else bought it".

By that standard, I guess we should only ever buy AAC and SilencerCo products?

I've never used any of the AB/CZ-USA cans so I have no idea if they are good or not but I have to say the design of the can lifted directly from a ribbed condom makes for the ugliest suppressor I've ever seen.

Or Dead Air.
Or Griffin.
Or Thunderbeast.
Or Q.
Or CGS.
Or YHM.
Or Rugged.
Or Griffin.
Or Energetic.

You know, SUCCESSFUL companies.

You're trying to put words in my mouth. Poorly.

Again-
Option 1 was an abject failure both in sales and (probably) performance. If they were AWESOME this forum would have been flooded with reviews. But there's not even one mention of anyone buying one. This is what detectives call a clue.
No anecdotal reviews.
No lab testing.
Very few even paid reviews (pay to play like gun rags, blogs, shills etc)
Major retailers/ wholesalers never even carried them. Silencer Shop, CA, HB, Meplat, etc. None of them ever carried them. Hell, RSR is one of the largest CZ firearms wholesalers in the country and they never even picked them up.

Option 2 has been tested by the premier independent lab in the country (world?) [https://pewscience.com/rankings]and is shown to objectively be the BEST centerfire rifle silencer when shot with supersonic ammo on a .308/6.5CM bolt action. To date that is.
They ARE carried by all the top retailers who honestly have a hard time keeping them in stock due to their popularity.

So prove me wrong Mike. Go out and buy one and it can sit in your safe beside the OSS cans you never shot.

You could have just taken the point and said "yeah I should have said that differently".

This has nothing to do with CGS.  They may not even be in his price range.

Your conclusion may be correct.

But it's also possible that the design performance was fine (I believe what reviews that do exist are positive) and for whatever reason (certainly not limited to possibilities that reflect poorly on the product) they decided not to commit sufficient resources to achieve good market penetration.

I don't need to "prove you wrong" to point out the glaring logic flaws in your comments.  Maybe stop making it about your ego and just offer whatever real knowledge you have that might be relevant.

Commercial success is not always directly correlated with product legitimacy, especially in markets like this where a fully informed consumer is rare.

And pointing out logic errors =/= challenging your expertise.

Lulz.  

It’s cute when you try to explain your ineptitude away.

I should have been more clear--I was saying the point I was making had nothing to do with CGS.  Everybody agrees CGS products are great--that's not relevant to the question of whether his comment was logically sound.

And the question was not whether a brand is a "contender".  I wasn't talking about which company is better, more successful, etc.

The guy was asking for information about a specific product.  The answer was "it was a commercial failure".  I was making the simple point that the commercial success doesn't necessarily reflect on the product itself.  It may, or it may not.  There's a lot more to selling something successfully beyond actually creating the product itself.  And this market in particular is very difficult to penetrate with something new/different.

The guy pointed to a positive review.  If somebody is going to disagree with that, "nobody bought it" isn't very relevant.  The suppressor market isn't like the automobile market where everybody has one, there are lots of professional reviews available for every product, you have the ability to take test drives before buying, and owner feedback is available in abundance for every single product you might be considering buying.

Seems to me it's an obvious point that should not be controversial, but when egos get involved logic tends to suffer.

Saying "If they were AWESOME this forum would have been flooded with reviews" is just ridiculous.  For comparison, feels to me like you have been talking about how awesome your CGS designs are for years and I'm not sure if I've seen a single user report yet.  (not saying it hasn't happened, just pointing out that the forum isn't flooded with reviews yet)  Yet everybody has no problem being confident CGS products are great.

You're splitting hairs trying to pick a fight and make yourself look smart. It's not working.

OP asked for general, not specific, information. And I answered his question.

The fact that it was a commercial failure IS information.

What information relating DIRECTLY to the topic at hand, other than disputing truthful, relevant statements made by other forum members, can you provide?

Yep, we were applying for a patent for our S series suppressors in the early 2000's, however it bounced back as pretty much the exact type of baffle that we had come up on our own, was buried in one of Maxim's patents

I do believe we were still the first company to manufacture tubeless suppressors in mass quantities in the S series and introducing it into our other suppressor families as well.

thanks for the replies - looks like CGS is the way to go, now if the ATF could "fix" their e-filing for Form 4's...not that I've ever used it, but e-filing sounds so nice.