User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/4/2022 11:23:02 PM EDT
I am starting a review of the NT4 and I was hoping one of you could help with some background on its development. Besides meeting a few specs (10K rounds/ 140 dB “hearing safe”), I’d like to know more about its initial design phase.
Any help is appreciated. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/5/2022 11:11:01 AM EDT
[#1]
Part of their original requirement was seven 30-round magazines (210 rounds) fired full-auto as fast as possible. First model did not have the "corncob" girdle, but it passed with commercial M193, but not with the required M855.
Second model had the girdle added and it passed with M855. I was there, in fact I was handing the magazines to Mr. Knight as he fired them... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/5/2022 11:29:33 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By coldblue: Part of their original requirement was seven 30-round magazines (210 rounds) fired full-auto as fast as possible. First model did not have the "corncob" girdle, but it passed with commercial M193, but not with the required M855. Second model had the girdle added and it passed with M855. I was there, in fact I was handing the magazines to Mr. Knight as he fired them... Awesome. Thank you. Was the failure with M855 due to extreme heat and bullet instability, a material/design failure that resulted in the corncob, or something else? I’m assuming this predated the SOCOM firing schedule with varying rates of fire? Were there any other requirements that are important to the NT4’s history? |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 6/5/2022 2:05:49 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By coldblue: Part of their original requirement was seven 30-round magazines (210 rounds) fired full-auto as fast as possible. First model did not have the "corncob" girdle, but it passed with commercial M193, but not with the required M855. Second model had the girdle added and it passed with M855. I was there, in fact I was handing the magazines to Mr. Knight as he fired them... Do you have any pics of the original without the corncob girdle you could share? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/6/2022 10:53:15 AM EDT
[#4]
Sorry, no old photos at this time.
Before the QDM4 girdle, the main body failed due to internal pressure (I guess). The girdle helps maintain the bodies integrity for that last 30 rounds. The later SOCOM firing schedule? We passed that too for the subsequent big competition with the New Technology (NT) QD M4. That's partly why we won the second big contract that knocked everyone in the industry on their heels because USSOCOM had "raised the bar," from the original QD M4 competition, but we passed anyway. And as I recall, we were the only submitter that did. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/6/2022 2:04:05 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By coldblue: Sorry, no old photos at this time. Before the QDM4 girdle, the main body failed due to internal pressure (I guess). The girdle helps maintain the bodies integrity for that last 30 rounds. The later SOCOM firing schedule? We passed that too for the subsequent big competition with the New Technology (NT) QD M4. That's partly why we won the second big contract that knocked everyone in the industry on their heels because USSOCOM had "raised the bar," from the original QD M4 competition, but we passed anyway. And as I recall, we were the only submitter that did. Out-fucking-standing. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 6/6/2022 2:21:30 PM EDT
[#6]
be curious to hear how the mounting system evolved between the first m4qd model and the later nt4? If memory serves, the first generation had POI shift issues that were addressed in the nt4.
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 6/6/2022 2:30:35 PM EDT
[#7]
Random trivia:
• IIRC, Joe Gaddini designed the locking gate. They'd rattle loose in rapid fire before the gate. • Taurus (Forjas Taurus, not "Taurus USA") cast inconel baffles, but out of nowhere, the U.S. State Department one day started handwringing on importing them, causing a urgent need for a new domestic US supplier.) • Doug scaled up the baffles to start development on the Mk23 pistol silencer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/7/2022 8:05:25 AM EDT
[#8]
Fantastic info in this thread. The NT4 is perhaps the most iconic and prevalent suppressor out there.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/7/2022 8:44:00 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By kel: Random trivia: • IIRC, Joe Gaddini designed the locking gate. They'd rattle loose in rapid fire before the gate. • Taurus (Forjas Taurus, not "Taurus USA") cast inconel baffles, but out of nowhere, the U.S. State Department one day started handwringing on importing them, causing a urgent need for a new domestic US supplier.) • Doug scaled up the baffles to start development on the Mk23 pistol silencer. Neat. I’ll hit up Joe and see if he wants to talk. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/7/2022 8:49:47 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By coldblue: Sorry, no old photos at this time. Before the QDM4 girdle, the main body failed due to internal pressure (I guess). The girdle helps maintain the bodies integrity for that last 30 rounds. The later SOCOM firing schedule? We passed that too for the subsequent big competition with the New Technology (NT) QD M4. That's partly why we won the second big contract that knocked everyone in the industry on their heels because USSOCOM had "raised the bar," from the original QD M4 competition, but we passed anyway. And as I recall, we were the only submitter that did. This is great. When did the first production NT4 roll off the line? Is ‘NT4’ short for NT QDSS M4? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/7/2022 10:27:20 AM EDT
[#11]
Yes, NT4. Seems not everyone was enamored with my evolving acronyms for new models...So it was QD4 then 2nd gen to NT4.
|
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 6/8/2022 11:03:56 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By coldblue: Yes, NT4. Seems not everyone was enamored with my evolving acronyms for new models...So it was QD4 then 2nd gen to NT4. I have learned that no matter what you do, somebody is going to be mad at the name. I'm going to just start doing random words. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2022 4:12:03 PM EDT
[#13]
"More Real Estate" and "Upper Receiver Extending" are just a couple of the more infamous ones...
One that did not go over very well was the "Preatorian" as a handle for the 6mm PDW... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2022 6:37:15 PM EDT
[#14]
I vote for a random word generator. One spin of the wheel decides the name of the next rifle/silencer/accessory line.
https://randomwordgenerator.com/ |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2022 8:40:33 AM EDT
[Last Edit: coldblue]
[#15]
Looking around for an original M4QD photo, I found this:
 Attached File |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2022 9:00:44 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By coldblue: Looking around for an original M4QD photo, I found this:https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/19411/trey_2_latches_jpg-2412334.JPG Very cool. Thank you. Seems like the 3/4 girdle would be just as strong and would save a little weight. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2022 12:02:18 PM EDT
[#17]
...but then they asked how long it would last on a belt-fed M249...
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2022 2:54:03 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By goloud: Very cool. Thank you. Seems like the 3/4 girdle would be just as strong and would save a little weight. You always go full cob. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2022 3:47:20 PM EDT
[#19]
uncircumsized was a good call
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2022 6:40:18 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Outrider: You always go full cob. For sure man. Cheers |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2022 10:59:32 PM EDT
[#21]
 This research project has become a bit of an obsession. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2022 12:32:39 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By goloud: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/83570/E3628E88-2941-4FE2-B68C-D59E2F735BA8-2413113.jpg This research project has become a bit of an obsession. username does not fit  Which can do you like most so far? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2022 6:26:42 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By M4ger: username does not fit Which can do you like most so far? I’m approaching 100 silencers. (Yes, I have a problem/disease/addiction). The 5.56 QDC/CQB is my new favorite AR can. Short and light it feels great on the 11.5” CQB. The mounting system is slick. One handed, rock solid lockup. 5.56 will always be loud, so I always suggest that shooters focus on weight, length, mounting systems, blowback, durability, and flash reduction (if night vision is your deal). I get confused when guys get laser focused on dB numbers for supersonic rifle rounds. Other aspects are much more important IMO. And the QDC/CQB seems to nail all of those. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2022 8:15:52 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By goloud: I’m approaching 100 silencers. (Yes, I have a problem/disease/addiction). The 5.56 QDC/CQB is my new favorite AR can. Short and light it feels great on the 11.5” CQB. The mounting system is slick. One handed, rock solid lockup. 5.56 will always be loud, so I always suggest that shooters focus on weight, length, mounting systems, blowback, durability, and flash reduction (if night vision is your deal). I get confused when guys get laser focused on dB numbers for supersonic rifle rounds. Other aspects are much more important IMO. And the QDC/CQB seems to nail all of those. Damn! I thought I was bad at 1/3 of that! In any case, happy to see you jump on the KAC train albeit at a very difficult time. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2022 8:56:32 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Outrider: Damn! I thought I was bad at 1/3 of that! In any case, happy to see you jump on the KAC train albeit at a very difficult time. Tell me about it… a hard lesson in supply and demand. I’ll honestly probably have to sell them at the end of the reviews. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2022 9:00:38 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By goloud: I’m approaching 100 silencers. (Yes, I have a problem/disease/addiction). The 5.56 QDC/CQB is my new favorite AR can. Short and light it feels great on the 11.5” CQB. The mounting system is slick. One handed, rock solid lockup. 5.56 will always be loud, so I always suggest that shooters focus on weight, length, mounting systems, blowback, durability, and flash reduction (if night vision is your deal). I get confused when guys get laser focused on dB numbers for supersonic rifle rounds. Other aspects are much more important IMO. And the QDC/CQB seems to nail all of those. When you said "rock solid lockup," it made me think of a question I want to ask: Does your QDC locking collar feel as secure on your 7.62 QDC as it does on your 5.56 QDC/CQB? I have a 7.62 QDC (the original style like the one in your pic), and it feels like there is barely any resistance when unlocking the collar. In fact, the ratcheting mechanism has more resistance when tightening than it does when removing it from the QDC flash hider... always thought this was kind of odd as it seems having more resistance when removing it to keep it more secure makes more sense. Been meaning to reach out to KAC customer service, but I figure I might as well ask you first since you have a few QDC examples to compare. Cheers! P.s. 100 suppressors!? And I'm sitting here thinking I have a suppressor problem...  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2022 9:00:42 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Outrider: Damn! I thought I was bad at 1/3 of that! In any case, happy to see you jump on the KAC train albeit at a very difficult time. Got a group pic? I'd love to see it. Cheers |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2022 11:01:29 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By buddyhoohaw: Got a group pic? I'd love to see it. Cheers I've never had them all together for a picture. I'll have to do it one day when the wife is out of town. Can't ever let her see everything at once! And the CQB can is awesome. It feels so at home on full size guns and really takes a big chunk out of the 5.56 bark. I've gotten to really like the mounting system as well. I'd like to get a .30 cal KAC can but I really don't need any more cans any time soon. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2022 12:26:01 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Outrider: I've never had them all together for a picture. I'll have to do it one day when the wife is out of town. Can't ever let her see everything at once! And the CQB can is awesome. It feels so at home on full size guns and really takes a big chunk out of the 5.56 bark. I've gotten to really like the mounting system as well. I'd like to get a .30 cal KAC can but I really don't need any more cans any time soon. I agree that the CQB can is awesome. Cheers |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2022 6:31:17 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CPshooter1: I agree 100%. There is so much more to a good suppressor than the dB rating alone. When you said "rock solid lockup," it made me think of a question I want to ask: Does your QDC locking collar feel as secure on your 7.62 QDC as it does on your 5.56 QDC/CQB? I have a 7.62 QDC (the original style like the one in your pic), and it feels like there is barely any resistance when unlocking the collar. In fact, the ratcheting mechanism has more resistance when tightening than it does when removing it from the QDC flash hider... always thought this was kind of odd as it seems having more resistance when removing it to keep it more secure makes more sense. Been meaning to reach out to KAC customer service, but I figure I might as well ask you first since you have a few QDC examples to compare. Cheers! P.s. 100 suppressors!? And I'm sitting here thinking I have a suppressor problem... Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CPshooter1: Originally Posted By goloud: I’m approaching 100 silencers. (Yes, I have a problem/disease/addiction). The 5.56 QDC/CQB is my new favorite AR can. Short and light it feels great on the 11.5” CQB. The mounting system is slick. One handed, rock solid lockup. 5.56 will always be loud, so I always suggest that shooters focus on weight, length, mounting systems, blowback, durability, and flash reduction (if night vision is your deal). I get confused when guys get laser focused on dB numbers for supersonic rifle rounds. Other aspects are much more important IMO. And the QDC/CQB seems to nail all of those. When you said "rock solid lockup," it made me think of a question I want to ask: Does your QDC locking collar feel as secure on your 7.62 QDC as it does on your 5.56 QDC/CQB? I have a 7.62 QDC (the original style like the one in your pic), and it feels like there is barely any resistance when unlocking the collar. In fact, the ratcheting mechanism has more resistance when tightening than it does when removing it from the QDC flash hider... always thought this was kind of odd as it seems having more resistance when removing it to keep it more secure makes more sense. Been meaning to reach out to KAC customer service, but I figure I might as well ask you first since you have a few QDC examples to compare. Cheers! P.s. 100 suppressors!? And I'm sitting here thinking I have a suppressor problem... I know I do. I have 0. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/16/2022 9:10:23 AM EDT
[#31]
Pew Science did a test on the NT4 and the review came out today. Pretty cool to see the NT4 hang in there with today's 5.56 cans.
https://pewscience.com/sound-signature-reviews-free/sss-6-78-kac-qdss-nt4-mk18-556 Tagging @TOOL1075 so he can see coldblue's input. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/16/2022 9:21:36 AM EDT
[#32]
Just got done reading that.
Just digging into some open source research and found that Reed Knight was part of the trio that helped develop the MILSTD 1474 testing protocol that we all know today. New for me. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/16/2022 10:27:12 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Outrider: Pew Science did a test on the NT4 and the review came out today. Pretty cool to see the NT4 hang in there with today's 5.56 cans. https://pewscience.com/sound-signature-reviews-free/sss-6-78-kac-qdss-nt4-mk18-556 Tagging @TOOL1075 so he can see coldblue's input. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Outrider: Pew Science did a test on the NT4 and the review came out today. Pretty cool to see the NT4 hang in there with today's 5.56 cans. https://pewscience.com/sound-signature-reviews-free/sss-6-78-kac-qdss-nt4-mk18-556 Tagging @TOOL1075 so he can see coldblue's input. Thank you! This thread is so cool! Yeah, I was speaking to Joe about the girdle tube and the c-clip he designed as a stop-gap measure for the tombstone gate latch coming loose. Some neat silencer trivia. Interesting that both the girdle and c-clip were last minute additions to keep the silencer chugging along! hahaha good stuff. He had a lot of stories for me, as he usually does - we've been meaning to do a podcast together but a lot of the stuff really isn't for public consumption hahahaha Originally Posted By goloud: Just got done reading that. Just digging into some open source research and found that Reed Knight was part of the trio that helped develop the MILSTD 1474 testing protocol that we all know today. New for me. When @outrider told me earlier today that you were working on an article, I was about to text you! So cool, man. I've tested the QDC and QDC/CQB too so we should powwow on that, if you like! Yeah, I'm sure Reed had a part in the development of 1474. To this day, it's a reasonable standard. The Silencer Sound Standard is, at its core, proper execution of the intent of 1474. Jay PEW Science |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/16/2022 11:18:46 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TOOL1075: Thank you! This thread is so cool! Yeah, I was speaking to Joe about the girdle tube and the c-clip he designed as a stop-gap measure for the tombstone gate latch coming loose. Some neat silencer trivia. Interesting that both the girdle and c-clip were last minute additions to keep the silencer chugging along! hahaha good stuff. He had a lot of stories for me, as he usually does - we've been meaning to do a podcast together but a lot of the stuff really isn't for public consumption hahahaha When @outrider told me earlier today that you were working on an article, I was about to text you! So cool, man. I've tested the QDC and QDC/CQB too so we should powwow on that, if you like! Yeah, I'm sure Reed had a part in the development of 1474. To this day, it's a reasonable standard. The Silencer Sound Standard is, at its core, proper execution of the intent of 1474. Jay PEW Science Definitely. Let’s schedule that podcast for next week. I’ll email you some days/times. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/16/2022 2:37:39 PM EDT
[#35]
Do you have any knowledge of the NT4 can’s performance being run with a MAMS vs the Nt4 flash hider?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/16/2022 2:57:20 PM EDT
[Last Edit: TOOL1075]
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By VinnyElCamino: Do you have any knowledge of the NT4 can’s performance being run with a MAMS vs the Nt4 flash hider? Hello, sir. The MAMS does impact things like carbon-lock, but as far as signature - I am not sure. In a recent test program in which I evaluated the QDC and QDC/CQB, a MAMS that I have on loan from a consumer did not fit inside the QDC silencers I had on loan from a different consumer, so only hider testing occured with the QDC series. It is an unfortunate outcome, but good data and analysis will come from the flash hider tests, regardless. The fact they did not fit is not exactly a unique experience. Talking with several users, the QDC MAMS has had some difficulty with fit over the years. With regard to the MAMS (and/or Triple Tap) performance differences with the NT4, compared with the M4QD flash hider, I do not know of any. I share the opinion of many that flash hiders are often preferred for dedicated silencer use. They seem to not get stuck with carbon-lock as often. This is just an anecdotal conclusion and I do not have test data to substantiate this opinion, other than niche, unique cases I have tested (re: Surefire WARCOMP in the 762-RC2 and 556-RC2 series in which extra porting and lack of seal geometry result in not only errant blast pressure to the operator, but excessive carbon-lock possibility). I hope this little bit of information helps. Maybe some KAC experts/users can share their experience with silencer use on MAMS/Triple Tap vs. M4QD flash hiders. Jay PEW Science |
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 6/16/2022 4:10:01 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TOOL1075: Hello, sir. The MAMS does impact things like carbon-lock, but as far as signature - I am not sure. In a recent test program in which I evaluated the QDC and QDC/CQB, a MAMS that I have on loan from a consumer did not fit inside the QDC silencers I had on loan from a different consumer, so only hider testing occured with the QDC series. It is an unfortunate outcome, but good data and analysis will come from the flash hider tests, regardless. The fact they did not fit is not exactly a unique experience. Talking with several users, the QDC MAMS has had some difficulty with fit over the years. With regard to the MAMS (and/or Triple Tap) performance differences with the NT4, compared with the M4QD flash hider, I do not know of any. I share the opinion of many that flash hiders are often preferred for dedicated silencer use. They seem to not get stuck with carbon-lock as often. This is just an anecdotal conclusion and I do not have test data to substantiate this opinion, other than niche, unique cases I have tested (re: Surefire WARCOMP in the 762-RC2 and 556-RC2 series in which extra porting and lack of seal geometry result in not only errant blast pressure to the operator, but excessive carbon-lock possibility). I hope this little bit of information helps. Maybe some KAC experts/users can share their experience with silencer use on MAMS/Triple Tap vs. M4QD flash hiders. Jay PEW Science For the older stuff, the differences between the MAMS and the various flash hiders was pretty minor. With new stuff, due to different designs, some performance attributes change a little between the two. With regard to the MAMS not fitting, I assume that it was a long-tine 7.62 MAMS. There was a revision that was made to the CQB since they were fielded with the flash hider, which is slightly shorter inside the suppressor than the long-tine MAMS, and as fielded systems were not using the MAMS it wasn't noticed by the development team. Thus the short-tine MAMS was created. When designing a suppressor, the muzzle device is a part of the system, and changing the device does potentially change things that matter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/16/2022 4:49:50 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Jack_L: For the older stuff, the differences between the MAMS and the various flash hiders was pretty minor. With new stuff, due to different designs, some performance attributes change a little between the two. With regard to the MAMS not fitting, I assume that it was a long-tine 7.62 MAMS. There was a revision that was made to the CQB since they were fielded with the flash hider, which is slightly shorter inside the suppressor than the long-tine MAMS, and as fielded systems were not using the MAMS it wasn't noticed by the development team. Thus the short-tine MAMS was created. When designing a suppressor, the muzzle device is a part of the system, and changing the device does potentially change things that matter. Hello, sir. Actually, in this particular case, the MAMS that was not fitting into the silencers was 5.56. When returning from the field, we eventually got the MAMS to fit into the QDC/CQB but could never get it to fit into the full size 5.56 QDC. At first, we suspected carbon buildup in the silencer, since the MAMS was pristine. However, that was not the case. Repeated tries failed to insert the MAMS into the QDC... it seemed to be a mechanical interference issue. Because both the silencer and mount were not owned by PEW Science, I was extremely reluctant to force them together, in the field. After action, I spoke with both owners (of the mount and the silencer) and they both told me I probably could have hammered the silencer onto the mount without damage, but I expressed reluctance because I didn't want to damage products that are currently difficult to replace. The brand new QDC flash hider I purchased for the test program inserted into both silencers without issue, and testing with it went according to plan. Again, the loaned MAMS was pristine, so the issue was curious! Regardless, this may have been an isolated incident. Again, after action, the users informed me that they have had MAMS fitment issues from time to time (sometimes from carbon buildup, sometimes from old finish issues, etc). My experience with these silencers is only limited to the aforementioned testing and analysis. I hope to be able to purchase some in the future, when available, and then I'll be more familiar with the idiosyncrasies! Jay PEW Science |
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 6/16/2022 4:57:04 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TOOL1075: Hello, sir. Actually, in this particular case, the MAMS that was not fitting into the silencers was 5.56. When returning from the field, we eventually got the MAMS to fit into the QDC/CQB but could never get it to fit into the full size 5.56 QDC. At first, we suspected carbon buildup in the silencer, since the MAMS was pristine. However, that was not the case. Repeated tries failed to insert the MAMS into the QDC... it seemed to be a mechanical interference issue. Because both the silencer and mount were not owned by PEW Science, I was extremely reluctant to force them together, in the field. After action, I spoke with both owners (of the mount and the silencer) and they both told me I probably could have hammered the silencer onto the mount without damage, but I expressed reluctance because I didn't want to damage products that are currently difficult to replace. The brand new QDC flash hider I purchased for the test program inserted into both silencers without issue, and testing with it went according to plan. Again, the loaned MAMS was pristine, so the issue was curious! Regardless, this may have been an isolated incident. Again, after action, the users informed me that they have had MAMS fitment issues from time to time (sometimes from carbon buildup, sometimes from old finish issues, etc). My experience with these silencers is only limited to the aforementioned testing and analysis. I hope to be able to purchase some in the future, when available, and then I'll be more familiar with the idiosyncrasies! Jay PEW Science Yeah, carbon buildup with the 3-prong is in interference with the full cylinder front of the MAMS, and needs to be Have had some other things that pop up, naturally, but there isn't anything in the design that precludes the 5.56 MAMS from working with and 5.56 QDC. If anyone is having any issues with and muzzle device NOT fitting their compatible suppressor, we'll fix it. It's rare, but it happens. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/16/2022 5:04:49 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Jack_L: Yeah, carbon buildup with the 3-prong is in interference with the full cylinder front of the MAMS, and needs to be Have had some other things that pop up, naturally, but there isn't anything in the design that precludes the 5.56 MAMS from working with and 5.56 QDC. If anyone is having any issues with and muzzle device NOT fitting their compatible suppressor, we'll fix it. It's rare, but it happens. Roger that, sir. The user of the silencers I tested exclusively uses his flash hider(s) and he has had nothing but great experiences, so good on that front. The guy with the mount seems to have no issues either. When combining the two random consumer parts - we got a weird situation (hey, it happens!! haha) Thanks for your help and feedback. The QDC mount system remains one of the coolest silencer attachment systems I have had the pleasure of using. That, alone, made me want to get one! I anxiously await the opportunity hahahaha Jay PEW Science |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/16/2022 5:32:39 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TOOL1075: Roger that, sir. The user of the silencers I tested exclusively uses his flash hider(s) and he has had nothing but great experiences, so good on that front. The guy with the mount seems to have no issues either. When combining the two random consumer parts - we got a weird situation (hey, it happens!! haha) Thanks for your help and feedback. The QDC mount system remains one of the coolest silencer attachment systems I have had the pleasure of using. That, alone, made me want to get one! I anxiously await the opportunity hahahaha Jay PEW Science I contacted over 700 SOTs to get my QDC/CQB for the review. It was a fun treasure hunt. I’m really looking forward to testing the PRT models. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/16/2022 5:40:56 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By goloud: I contacted over 700 SOTs to get my QDC/CQB for the review. It was a fun treasure hunt. I’m really looking forward to testing the PRT models. I feel like you're my long lost brother hahahaha the obsession is real. Jay PEW Science |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/16/2022 10:13:32 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TOOL1075: Hello, sir. The MAMS does impact things like carbon-lock, but as far as signature - I am not sure. In a recent test program in which I evaluated the QDC and QDC/CQB, a MAMS that I have on loan from a consumer did not fit inside the QDC silencers I had on loan from a different consumer, so only hider testing occured with the QDC series. It is an unfortunate outcome, but good data and analysis will come from the flash hider tests, regardless. The fact they did not fit is not exactly a unique experience. Talking with several users, the QDC MAMS has had some difficulty with fit over the years. With regard to the MAMS (and/or Triple Tap) performance differences with the NT4, compared with the M4QD flash hider, I do not know of any. I share the opinion of many that flash hiders are often preferred for dedicated silencer use. They seem to not get stuck with carbon-lock as often. This is just an anecdotal conclusion and I do not have test data to substantiate this opinion, other than niche, unique cases I have tested (re: Surefire WARCOMP in the 762-RC2 and 556-RC2 series in which extra porting and lack of seal geometry result in not only errant blast pressure to the operator, but excessive carbon-lock possibility). I hope this little bit of information helps. Maybe some KAC experts/users can share their experience with silencer use on MAMS/Triple Tap vs. M4QD flash hiders. Jay PEW Science Much appreciated insight. I have two 11.5” knights, one with an NT4 flash suppressor, the second will have an NT4 MAMS outfitted once the muzzle arrives in the mail. I’ll test them out next range trip with my NT4 can and report back, i’ll see if my colleague with a db reader will tag along so I have some quantifiable data. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2022 7:14:29 PM EDT
[#44]
 Bumping this thread… |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/18/2022 5:13:51 PM EDT
[#45]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/18/2022 8:07:52 PM EDT
[#46]
Excellent! Well done sir!
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2022 4:33:29 PM EDT
[#47]
Badass thread! Thanks guys.
Also...I need an NT4.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2022 4:38:04 PM EDT
[#48]
I really like the CDQ/CQB but it does flash a lot.
|
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 6/20/2022 11:05:05 AM EDT
[#49]
https://www.instagram.com/p/CKAN5KSDBDd/
More prototype NT4s - I believe these are in Kevin Brittingham's collection. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2022 2:36:23 PM EDT
[#50]
Of the (3) visible units that have been cross-sectioned, I think one is a Sig and the closest unit may be an AAC SPR-M4?
|
|
|
|
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.
