Armory Sponsor
Posted: 12/18/2021 9:18:21 PM EDT
| Looking for a new hard use suppressor for an M16 and wanted to see what flavor you guys are drinking these days. |
|
Between two great suggestions of the AAC and the YHM If you want the most robust the M4 2000 is a beast and takes a beating without breaking a sweat. If you want capable while being shorter and lighter the YHM turbo K is your can. I have both and replaced the brick shithouse that is the M4 2000 with the Turbo K just to save the weight and size. If I was going to do a quick couple mag dumps followed right away by a beta mag I would want the M4 2000 on it. Normal abuse either would work fine. |
| YHM's are built like tanks. And if you break one (ask me), they will take care of you. I got basically a new suppressor when a weld broke from "hard use" (new core, cerakoting, etc). YHM are good peeps. My event was with one of their early .30 cal Titaniums that had probably 8K rounds on it when the weld broke. Their mount system is great also. |
|
Originally Posted By Steamedliver: I use a Saker That was my first try at replacing the M4-2000. On my full auto it just had too much backpressure and made my cyclic rate incredibly high. The YHM does better but the M4-2000 was the best for cyclic rate at right around 650-750 RPM. |
|
Originally Posted By jd2395: YHM's are built like tanks. And if you break one (ask me), they will take care of you. I got basically a new suppressor when a weld broke from "hard use" (new core, cerakoting, etc). YHM are good peeps. My event was with one of their early .30 cal Titaniums that had probably 8K rounds on it when the weld broke. Their mount system is great also. YHM are built like tanks but it would be like comparing a Sherman to a King Tiger. Both are tanks but one is built stronger. For warranty I would have to go with YHM until the new AAC proves itself. |
|
Originally Posted By Recoil737: YHM are built like tanks but it would be like comparing a Sherman to a King Tiger. Both are tanks but one is built stronger. For warranty I would have to go with YHM until the new AAC proves itself. You might want to do a little more research as to the two tanks you listed. "Stronger" is subjective as to what you meant, at least to me. Are you strictly talking about armor protection or how well the tank held up? The drive components in the King Tiger were so over loaded, that lots of the tanks would break down before they ever made it to the front line for combat. Where as the Sherman was known for it's reliability and ease of repair, but limited armor protection. Personally I don't find "stronger" specific enough. If you had specified "armored protection" would have made more sense to me. I have an AAC M47-2000 can. It is basically a M4-2000 reamed out to 7.62 projectiles. It has held up quite well. 7.62 allows for 300 BLK OUT 7.62X39 subsonic to cycle the action and a little more room for short barrels that don't stabilize bullets as well. I have way more in mounts than what I spent on the can in 2006. I am still happy with the can. Scott |
|
Originally Posted By canon3825: You might want to do a little more research as to the two tanks you listed. "Stronger" is subjective as to what you meant, at least to me. Are you strictly talking about armor protection or how well the tank held up? The drive components in the King Tiger were so over loaded, that lots of the tanks would break down before they ever made it to the front line for combat. Where as the Sherman was known for it's reliability and ease of repair, but limited armor protection. Personally I don't find "stronger" specific enough. If you had specified "armored protection" would have made more sense to me. I have an AAC M47-2000 can. It is basically a M4-2000 reamed out to 7.62 projectiles. It has held up quite well. 7.62 allows for 300 BLK OUT 7.62X39 subsonic to cycle the action and a little more room for short barrels that don't stabilize bullets as well. I have way more in mounts than what I spent on the can in 2006. I am still happy with the can. Scott Since suppressors don't have engines I was talking about how tough they are. A King Tiger can take a lot more punishment than a Sherman making it stronger. Because I don't think many people equate engine capabilities or reliability with strength when talking about a tank. |
|
Don’t turn this into a tank-wank as you guys banter back and forth over who has the dumbest analogy. With hard use as the operative parameter over value I would recommend anything with a stellite blast baffle. Saker, Chimera, Sandman. |
|
Originally Posted By canon3825: I have an AAC M47-2000 can. It is basically a M4-2000 reamed out to 7.62 projectiles. It has held up quite well. 7.62 allows for 300 BLK OUT 7.62X39 subsonic to cycle the action and a little more room for short barrels that don't stabilize bullets as well. I have way more in mounts than what I spent on the can in 2006. I am still happy with the can. Scott Why ream out a M4-2k can? I'd just get a can that was designed for 7.62. My paint on my M4-2k is burnt as well which is too bad since it was the old style before they went the cheap finish. I'm curious what the "new" AAC quality will be like. |
|
Another legacy vote for the M4-2000. I have two of them and they have held up extremely well (minus the finish), one of which is pushing 14 years old at this point as it was made in 2008.
The most flat out durable 5.56 suppressor I probably own is a American Manufacturing XXX Warrior, but the reality is it weighs as much as a boat anchor and is bored out to 30cal and then some. Unfortunately neither of these two brick shithouse cans are still in production to the best of my knowledge. (although AAC may come back to life in the near future) If I were to buy another heavy duty full auto M16 suppressor today that is still manufactured and supported, it would be a Silencerco Chimera 300. I have a Chimera 300 that I use full auto on my short barreled 7.62x39 uppers as well as my my short barrel Colt LE901 in 308 and have been happy with it. The Chimera 300 can also be run on a standard 5.56 M16 upper as well so it would give you some flexibility on caliber as well. |
|
I get to brag on my Tac-16 Suppressor I just don't know if they make them any longer. Probably not  Its Range Report So I have a Dragoon in NFA jail right now Day 264 as I type this. 
|
"He should have killed me. I would have killed me."
For God and Country: Geronimo! Geronimo! Geronimo!
Michael Moore: Trump’s election is going to be the biggest Fuck You ever recorded in human history….And it will feel good.
For God and Country: Geronimo! Geronimo! Geronimo!
Michael Moore: Trump’s election is going to be the biggest Fuck You ever recorded in human history….And it will feel good.
|
oss helix 556 qd The lack of added back pressure is much appropriated as is the fact there is nothing to come loose. And it self tightens as you shoot it. Was worried it would be loud, but to my ears it's negligable as 5.56 isn't really ever "quiet" anyway. and well worth the trade off for the benefits. I have done 60 round Magpul mag dumps and ran it way harder overall then my omega 300. |
|
This. Originally Posted By Heineken: oss helix 556 qd The lack of added back pressure is much appropriated as is the fact there is nothing to come loose. And it self tightens as you shoot it. Was worried it would be loud, but to my ears it's negligable as 5.56 isn't really ever "quiet" anyway. and well worth the trade off for the benefits. I have done 60 round Magpul mag dumps and ran it way harder overall then my omega 300. |
|
Originally Posted By An1913t: This. Originally Posted By An1913t: This. Originally Posted By Heineken: oss helix 556 qd The lack of added back pressure is much appropriated as is the fact there is nothing to come loose. And it self tightens as you shoot it. Was worried it would be loud, but to my ears it's negligable as 5.56 isn't really ever "quiet" anyway. and well worth the trade off for the benefits. I have done 60 round Magpul mag dumps and ran it way harder overall then my omega 300. A friend has an older model and I've only shot a single mag through it the lack of gas to the face and unaffected cyclic rate was magical compared to my M4-2000. |
Armory Sponsor