User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/3/2022 4:17:56 PM EDT
I like the new offering from HUXWRK. The new Flow 556K can is their new 3D printed offering. I think I'm going to buy this one versus the Sierra 5. What are your thoughts?
 Introducing The Flow 556k  OSS Suppressors Flow-Through & Torque Lock 3D Printed HUXWRX FLOW 556K |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2022 4:26:28 PM EDT
[#1]
Here is my test data and analysis:
PEW Science Test of the HUXWRX FLOW 556k on the standard MK18 Jay PEW Science |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2022 4:28:22 PM EDT
[#2]
And here it’s getting a lot of mention. Starting towards the bottom of page 2.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2022 4:28:54 PM EDT
[#3]
I don't think it will allow other manufacturers mounting systems to be used like Keymo etc. For that reason I am out. Unless I read that wrong.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2022 4:46:17 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don't think it will allow other manufacturers mounting systems to be used like Keymo etc. For that reason I am out. Unless I read that wrong. Correct. Must use OSS/HUX mounts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2022 5:05:35 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Correct. Must use OSS/HUX mounts. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I don't think it will allow other manufacturers mounting systems to be used like Keymo etc. For that reason I am out. Unless I read that wrong. Correct. Must use OSS/HUX mounts. Why are they so heavy |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2022 5:12:48 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Why are they so heavy I was just wondering that, myself. I'm playing with one at my desk. They drill these little holes around the base circumference, longitudinally, to save weight. That big "base chunk" on their newest flash hider has rear wrench flats, the coarse "acme" LH threads, and a taper. Forward of that, it's the flash hider and whatever. So, assuming you care nothing about shooting with the mount when the silencer is not on the gun (I mean, that's my preference, but mil/leo/gov always seems to want to shoot unsuppressed too - ugh hahahha), maybe you can just cut off the flash hider part to save weight  Rearden commented he wants to try to make some. That dude makes awesome mounts. I wonder if he will..... But, I mean, the mount is like 3 ounces. It's not crazy heavy. Maybe you could save an ounce cutting off the front  Jay PEW Science |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2022 5:21:40 PM EDT
[#7]
I bought one of these as soon as I got the notification from SilencerShop. I heard a few weeks ago that this can was incredible.
Jay’s report just solidified my decision. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2022 5:30:25 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I was just wondering that, myself. I'm playing with one at my desk. They drill these little holes around the base circumference, longitudinally, to save weight. That big "base chunk" on their newest flash hider has rear wrench flats, the coarse "acme" LH threads, and a taper. Forward of that, it's the flash hider and whatever. So, assuming you care nothing about shooting with the mount when the silencer is not on the gun (I mean, that's my preference, but mil/leo/gov always seems to want to shoot unsuppressed too - ugh hahahha), maybe you can just cut off the flash hider part to save weight Rearden commented he wants to try to make some. That dude makes awesome mounts. I wonder if he will..... But, I mean, the mount is like 3 ounces. It's not crazy heavy. Maybe you could save an ounce cutting off the front Jay PEW Science That’s positive news about Rearden |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2022 5:35:21 PM EDT
[#9]
3 ounces is pretty light. The A2 flash suppressor weighs like 1.8 ounces. I think the OSS mounts are part of the suppressor- AKA if you cut the front off, the suppressor would be totally screwed for functioning properly.
The flash suppressor has a plate up front that redirects gas into parts of the suppressor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2022 6:13:48 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 3 ounces is pretty light. The A2 flash suppressor weighs like 1.8 ounces. I think the OSS mounts are part of the suppressor- AKA if you cut the front off, the suppressor would be totally screwed for functioning properly. The suppressor itself isn't bad at only 12.something oz. But a 3oz muzzle device kind of ruins it for being light weight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2022 6:16:49 PM EDT
[#11]
Quoted: I think I'm going to buy this one versus the Sierra 5. What are your thoughts? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2022 7:49:46 PM EDT
[#12]
Need a titanium version
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2022 7:58:02 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Why are they so heavy 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2022 8:08:29 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think there is a place for both. Couldn't agree more. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2022 8:14:50 PM EDT
[#15]
Things are so crazy I will probably wait a year to see what happens, will definitely be in for a full size titanium version.
The big question is will a tuned host with traditional baffles, like the polonium or rc2, get to the 30’s?...it seems like a really large gap to make up with just tuning. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2022 8:24:59 PM EDT
[#16]
I want one so badly, but I can’t get over the brand name. It’s like something you’ll find in the clearance section of a harbor freight catalog.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2022 8:25:21 PM EDT
[#17]
I bought a Polonium K. Kind of regretting that after seeing the Pew Science results on this one...
The FLOW also has no minimum barrel length from what I see online. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2022 8:52:29 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's my belief as well. I believe the muzzle devices direct gas flow into the outer section were it does it's crazy spiral thing back and forth. The suppressor itself isn't bad at only 12.something oz. But a 3oz muzzle device kind of ruins it for being light weight. The muzzle device just weighs what a muzzle device weighs. So if you like compare a $1300 Sig SLX556QD at 19.4 ounces to another can that weighs 11.8, then you save 7.6 ounces with the other can. I think the Sig muzzle device weighs like 3.4 ounces. The only way to get away from the muzzle device weight is 40% lighter with titanium, or direct thread, which kind of guts the suppressor from a usability perspective. I actually am surprised by 3 ounces though. My HXQD556 muzzle device in 1/2x28 is a brake, and it weighs 3.8 ounces. (I just weighed it because 3 ounces sounded light- maybe the flash suppressors are lighter-) |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2022 8:58:28 PM EDT
[#19]
Looks extremely promising given the pew science results. I do want to see videos from individual owners shooting in low light. A few shots in a promo video doesn’t quite have me 100% convinced. But most likely I’ll pick one up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2022 9:10:39 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I bought a Polonium K. Kind of regretting that after seeing the Pew Science results on this one... The FLOW also has no minimum barrel length from what I see online. FLOW looks like a good fit for untuned, carbine gas 10.3” 5.56 handy, shortish range, door kicker, HD, vehicle deployed SBRs. The weight isn’t that bad and likely a good trade for that host. Same with material choice. Chances are if it’s pushing gas flows it’s dumping heat and can handle a healthy firing schedule. Personally I’d go shorter and lighter on the host with an 8” 300 blackout but 110 grain goodness offsets host weight with ammo weight and cost. I bet the Polonium K would be a great fit for a tuned 18”-24” varmint popper. The only useful test data I get from Pew Science is .308 bolt guns. I don’t find his other choice of test hosts relevant to my utility. I look forward to the day his software tool is offered commercially so I can leverage his insightful methodology. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2022 9:49:55 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The muzzle device just weighs what a muzzle device weighs. So if you like compare a $1300 Sig SLX556QD at 19.4 ounces to another can that weighs 11.8, then you save 7.6 ounces with the other can. I think the Sig muzzle device weighs like 3.4 ounces. The only way to get away from the muzzle device weight is 40% lighter with titanium, or direct thread, which kind of guts the suppressor from a usability perspective. I actually am surprised by 3 ounces though. My HXQD556 muzzle device in 1/2x28 is a brake, and it weighs 3.8 ounces. (I just weighed it because 3 ounces sound light- maybe the flash suppressors are lighter-) Your titanium taper muzzle break is fucking Godlike at 1 oz. Combine with aftermarket titanium plan A adapters it's got to be the lightest system on the market (possible including direct thread.). Total mount system weight is 1.8 oz with an spc adapter. The only thing that would be even better would be a titanium mini fh. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2022 7:24:21 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The muzzle device just weighs what a muzzle device weighs. So if you like compare a $1300 Sig SLX556QD at 19.4 ounces to another can that weighs 11.8, then you save 7.6 ounces with the other can. I think the Sig muzzle device weighs like 3.4 ounces. The only way to get away from the muzzle device weight is 40% lighter with titanium, or direct thread, which kind of guts the suppressor from a usability perspective. I actually am surprised by 3 ounces though. My HXQD556 muzzle device in 1/2x28 is a brake, and it weighs 3.8 ounces. (I just weighed it because 3 ounces sounded light- maybe the flash suppressors are lighter-) Even comparing the Flow to an ultra light EA ARX (8oz) with DA Xeno adapter (1.95oz) and Xeno FS muzzle device (3.2oz), that's 13.15oz. Or DA Sierra 5 (10.8oz), Plan A (2.3oz), Taper Mount EZ-Brake 2.0oz, that's 15.1oz |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2022 8:43:26 PM EDT
[#23]
We’re making a 1.95 ounce plan A that adds .725” and that could be used with a ti minimalist brake for 3.05 ounces for the mount and muzzle device.
I think that will be the best taper mount plan A because it will allow most muzzle devices to fit, and it should look pretty cool and barely weighs anything. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2022 8:52:37 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: We’re making a 1.95 ounce plan A that adds .725” and that could be used with a ti minimalist brake for 3.05 ounces for the mount and muzzle device. I think that will be the best taper mount plan A because it will allow most muzzle devices to fit, and it should look pretty cool and barely weighs anything. I’m going to need one |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2022 9:41:29 PM EDT
[#25]
I kind of lost a week on it, running a bunch of R&D parts, keeping machinists on a silencer development project. Maybe I can get someone on that settup tomorrow.
I am a little excited about it. The cosmetic geometry should hopefully provide an effective gripping surface to reduce issues with loosening the interface and the part will take a normal omega spanner also. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2022 9:51:05 PM EDT
[#26]
Why not buy both?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2022 8:45:08 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I kind of lost a week on it, running a bunch of R&D parts, keeping machinists on a silencer development project. Maybe I can get someone on that settup tomorrow. I am a little excited about it. The cosmetic geometry should hopefully provide an effective gripping surface to reduce issues with loosening the interface and the part will take a normal omega spanner also.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2022 2:29:57 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Why not buy both? I'm trying so hard to avoid buying both..... My willpower is diminishing quickly. When I was on my way to work today I asked myself if I could only have one which would I chose? It was too tough to answer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2022 2:55:04 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don't think it will allow other manufacturers mounting systems to be used like Keymo etc. For that reason I am out. Unless I read that wrong. Agreed. I’ve bought three cans that use proprietary mounts, the most recent of which being a Hyperion, none of them get shot at this point. It’s easy enough to switch out mounts but more of a pain to swap muzzle devices. It took me a while but I’ve learned this lesson. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2022 3:02:45 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Agreed. I’ve bought three cans that use proprietary mounts, the most recent of which being a Hyperion, none of them get shot at this point. It’s easy enough to switch out mounts but more of a pain to swap muzzle devices. It took me a while but I’ve learned this lesson. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I don't think it will allow other manufacturers mounting systems to be used like Keymo etc. For that reason I am out. Unless I read that wrong. Agreed. I’ve bought three cans that use proprietary mounts, the most recent of which being a Hyperion, none of them get shot at this point. It’s easy enough to switch out mounts but more of a pain to swap muzzle devices. It took me a while but I’ve learned this lesson. 6:05 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bjXnXcAq0z8 |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2022 3:44:52 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 6:05 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bjXnXcAq0z8 For now, I just plan to dedicate my OSS suppressors to guns that don't deal with back pressure well. Like AKs, X95, etc. I probably won't be swapping my other cans on there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2022 3:49:10 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 6:05 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bjXnXcAq0z8 It seems he was alluding to two separate things: 1. the FLOW and 2. possibly another modular option. I guess we should stay tuned? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2022 3:51:34 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It seems he was alluding to two separate things: 1. the FLOW and 2. possibly another modular option. I guess we should stay tuned? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2022 3:59:47 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It seems he was alluding to two separate things: 1. the FLOW and 2. possibly another modular option. I guess we should stay tuned? Oops, yeah a long time ago I thought it sounded like a direct thread option but re listening to it, sounds like it will still all be the reverse thread taper...which I don’t mind...and after pew science data on the Helios qd and mk18...cans should really be optimized with a certain mounting system to optimal results |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2022 5:04:24 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Oops, yeah a long time ago I thought it sounded like a direct thread option but re listening to it, sounds like it will still all be the reverse thread taper...which I don’t mind...and after pew science data on the Helios qd and mk18...cans should really be optimized with a certain mounting system to optimal results To me, "pretty much anything that is out there" points to a 1.375×24 mounting option. I'd bet they have something new(er) on the horizon. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2022 6:18:33 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: FLOW looks like a good fit for untuned, carbine gas 10.3" 5.56 handy, shortish range, door kicker, HD, vehicle deployed SBRs. The weight isn't that bad and likely a good trade for that host. Same with material choice. Chances are if it's pushing gas flows it's dumping heat and can handle a healthy firing schedule. Personally I'd go shorter and lighter on the host with an 8" 300 blackout but 110 grain goodness offsets host weight with ammo weight and cost. I bet the Polonium K would be a great fit for a tuned 18"-24" varmint popper. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2022 6:35:57 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: To me, "pretty much anything that is out there" points to a 1.375 24 mounting option. I'd bet they have something new(er) on the horizon. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2022 11:32:23 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: To me, "pretty much anything that is out there" points to a 1.375×24 mounting option. I'd bet they have something new(er) on the horizon. If so I’ll probably buy one. At this point that’s my top criteria for new cans. Most of my cans are dedicated to a given host but flexibility is key |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2022 11:57:46 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: To me, "pretty much anything that is out there" points to a 1.375×24 mounting option. I'd bet they have something new(er) on the horizon. Quote HistoryQuoted: To me, "pretty much anything that is out there" points to a 1.375×24 mounting option. I'd bet they have something new(er) on the horizon. Quoted: I'm sure hoping you are right. Something like the Flow 556K with a HUB interface would be very interesting. Quoted: If so I’ll probably buy one. At this point that’s my top criteria for new cans. Most of my cans are dedicated to a given host but flexibility is key I'm just gonna jump in here really quickly with some general thoughts regarding dedicated (proprietary) mounts vs. so-called universal HUB mounts: There is no question that the universal back-end that has become popular is awesome. It's great for flexibility, for folks being able to standardize on a mount type across brands to save a little money if they decide to change silencers, etc. In concept, it's a great idea, and in execution, I think it's a great idea too. However - there is something to be said for a proprietary mounting system. A dedicated, proprietary mount allows the manufacturer to: 1. Enact further control over their system. Immediately, certain user-induced variables disappear. 2. Provide a tighter performance envelope. The physics that differ from mount geometry, placement, and type, relative to the silencer "core," can vary significantly across weapon systems. 3. With (1) and (2), the manufacturer is able to provide a total system solution that is more likely to meet their design intent of signature suppression, flow rate, accuracy, durability, and reliability. In my opinion, from what I know about the OSS/HUXWRX mounting system, if I were them, I would not introduce additional complexity, length, or weight to their system to accomodate a "universal" back end. The possible detriments to reliability and performance, not to mention end-user issues, seem to tip the probabilities and consequences too far for the risk equation to make sense. It just doesn't make sense to do it, technically. That is my opinion. Jay PEW Science |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2022 12:53:28 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm just gonna jump in here really quickly with some general thoughts regarding dedicated (proprietary) mounts vs. so-called universal HUB mounts: There is no question that the universal back-end that has become popular is awesome. It's great for flexibility, for folks being able to standardize on a mount type across brands to save a little money if they decide to change silencers, etc. In concept, it's a great idea, and in execution, I think it's a great idea too. However - there is something to be said for a proprietary mounting system. A dedicated, proprietary mount allows the manufacturer to: 1. Enact further control over their system. Immediately, certain user-induced variables disappear. 2. Provide a tighter performance envelope. The physics that differ from mount geometry, placement, and type, relative to the silencer "core," can vary significantly across weapon systems. 3. With (1) and (2), the manufacturer is able to provide a total system solution that is more likely to meet their design intent of signature suppression, flow rate, accuracy, durability, and reliability. In my opinion, from what I know about the OSS/HUXWRX mounting system, if I were them, I would not introduce additional complexity, length, or weight to their system to accomodate a "universal" back end. The possible detriments to reliability and performance, not to mention end-user issues, seem to tip the probabilities and consequences too far for the risk equation to make sense. It just doesn't make sense to do it, technically. That is my opinion. Jay PEW Science Agreed. The performance loss likely would be especially apparent on a flow-through design such as HUX's that requires very distinct gas pathway in order to work as intended. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2022 4:56:27 PM EDT
[#41]
Bought mine today. Sticking my finger inside and it feels razor sharp all around. The 3D printing has lots of sharp edges. Not used to sticking my fingers in things and it cutting me.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2022 5:09:29 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm just gonna jump in here really quickly with some general thoughts regarding dedicated (proprietary) mounts vs. so-called universal HUB mounts: There is no question that the universal back-end that has become popular is awesome. It's great for flexibility, for folks being able to standardize on a mount type across brands to save a little money if they decide to change silencers, etc. In concept, it's a great idea, and in execution, I think it's a great idea too. However - there is something to be said for a proprietary mounting system. A dedicated, proprietary mount allows the manufacturer to: 1. Enact further control over their system. Immediately, certain user-induced variables disappear. 2. Provide a tighter performance envelope. The physics that differ from mount geometry, placement, and type, relative to the silencer "core," can vary significantly across weapon systems. 3. With (1) and (2), the manufacturer is able to provide a total system solution that is more likely to meet their design intent of signature suppression, flow rate, accuracy, durability, and reliability. In my opinion, from what I know about the OSS/HUXWRX mounting system, if I were them, I would not introduce additional complexity, length, or weight to their system to accomodate a "universal" back end. The possible detriments to reliability and performance, not to mention end-user issues, seem to tip the probabilities and consequences too far for the risk equation to make sense. It just doesn't make sense to do it, technically. That is my opinion. Jay PEW Science Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: To me, "pretty much anything that is out there" points to a 1.375×24 mounting option. I'd bet they have something new(er) on the horizon. Quoted: I'm sure hoping you are right. Something like the Flow 556K with a HUB interface would be very interesting. Quoted: If so I’ll probably buy one. At this point that’s my top criteria for new cans. Most of my cans are dedicated to a given host but flexibility is key I'm just gonna jump in here really quickly with some general thoughts regarding dedicated (proprietary) mounts vs. so-called universal HUB mounts: There is no question that the universal back-end that has become popular is awesome. It's great for flexibility, for folks being able to standardize on a mount type across brands to save a little money if they decide to change silencers, etc. In concept, it's a great idea, and in execution, I think it's a great idea too. However - there is something to be said for a proprietary mounting system. A dedicated, proprietary mount allows the manufacturer to: 1. Enact further control over their system. Immediately, certain user-induced variables disappear. 2. Provide a tighter performance envelope. The physics that differ from mount geometry, placement, and type, relative to the silencer "core," can vary significantly across weapon systems. 3. With (1) and (2), the manufacturer is able to provide a total system solution that is more likely to meet their design intent of signature suppression, flow rate, accuracy, durability, and reliability. In my opinion, from what I know about the OSS/HUXWRX mounting system, if I were them, I would not introduce additional complexity, length, or weight to their system to accomodate a "universal" back end. The possible detriments to reliability and performance, not to mention end-user issues, seem to tip the probabilities and consequences too far for the risk equation to make sense. It just doesn't make sense to do it, technically. That is my opinion. Jay PEW Science After shooting the oss cans I own and talking with the owner in Utah. Hub mounting would be a mistake. The flow though gas ports are angled to tighten the suppressor down after each shot. It screws down left hand thread. Most hub stuff is right hand except for Xeno. You would be unscrewing it with every shot. Plus that’s really the only way oss cans stay tight. So you couldn’t use their muzzle device on a traditional suppresser because it would just walk off the muzzle device. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2022 9:33:39 PM EDT
[#43]
Am I missing something? Pew rates it as 33 which is minimal suppression.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2022 9:55:35 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Am I missing something? Pew rates it as 33 which is minimal suppression. The at-ear rating is the highest so far. People looking for that metric would be happy with this suppressor. To me, I personally don't get the hype. It's a 556 supersonic round so you're wearing ear pro regardless. There's the less gassiness but all my rifles are tuned. And to be honest, if I'm taking a shot not on the range it's probably going down a hallway which is where I'd want both quiet at muzzle and ear anyway. It's cool to see progress with 3d printed designs and all but I personally think people are reading too much into the results. Time will tell I guess. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2022 10:38:12 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The at-ear rating is the highest so far. People looking for that metric would be happy with this suppressor. To me, I personally don't get the hype. It's a 556 supersonic round so you're wearing ear pro regardless. There's the less gassiness but all my rifles are tuned. And to be honest, if I'm taking a shot not on the range it's probably going down a hallway which is where I'd want both quiet at muzzle and ear anyway. It's cool to see progress with 3d printed designs and all but I personally think people are reading too much into the results. Time will tell I guess. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Am I missing something? Pew rates it as 33 which is minimal suppression. The at-ear rating is the highest so far. People looking for that metric would be happy with this suppressor. To me, I personally don't get the hype. It's a 556 supersonic round so you're wearing ear pro regardless. There's the less gassiness but all my rifles are tuned. And to be honest, if I'm taking a shot not on the range it's probably going down a hallway which is where I'd want both quiet at muzzle and ear anyway. It's cool to see progress with 3d printed designs and all but I personally think people are reading too much into the results. Time will tell I guess. Thanks for the informed response. And yes it's cool to see 3D printing in the NFA world. I know CGS was doing 3D as well. Maybe it will be the new thing and more and more kickass suppressors will come out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2022 4:52:06 AM EDT
[#46]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2022 9:31:16 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: To me, I personally don't get the hype. It's a 556 supersonic round so you're wearing ear pro regardless. There's the less gassiness but all my rifles are tuned. I have a lot of tuned rifles, but I also have a lot that aren't and will never be. I'm definitely not going to run a Turbo or Polonium on those. There is no perfect suppressor for every situation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2022 9:50:04 AM EDT
[#48]
Ok so question from a newbie. How does this deal with a baffle strike? Looks like they wouldn't be able to just replace an end cap if it is 3d printed?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2022 9:56:36 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Ok so question from a newbie. How does this deal with a baffle strike? Looks like they wouldn't be able to just replace an end cap if it is 3d printed? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2022 10:35:53 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Ok so question from a newbie. How does this deal with a baffle strike? Looks like they wouldn't be able to just replace an end cap if it is 3d printed? Without knowing what the internals look like, if there's an unstable projectile or jacket seperation, assuming there's no issues based on the mount backing off, based on where the serial is... Maybe they're banking on E-Forms being quick turn around in the future? At least other 3d printed options like CGS put their serial at the base where I could see them chopping off the baffle area and reprinting on top. |
|
|
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.
