Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
Member Login

Posted: 3/28/2017 10:30:13 AM EDT
Hi all,

I have a 10.3" Daniel Def. mk18 wanna be. the NT4 is a decent can on this little guy, but I have been considering going to a 14.5" barrel upper to run the nt4 on.  A few questions - one, will going to the 14.5" socom barrel extend the life of the can or does this even matter with this can?  two, will I hear any noticeable difference with regard to decibel reduction (absent using a testing device)?  Thanks in advance gents.

Link Posted: 3/28/2017 12:47:34 PM EDT
The NT$, oops, Freudian slip, NT4 is probably the heaviest duty can out there:  since the 10.3 isn't going to hurt it, the 14.5 isn't going to help it much IMO.

IOW, shoot away with either.
Link Posted: 3/28/2017 12:59:13 PM EDT
"NT$"  ahaahahah - so true.  Thanks man.
Link Posted: 4/17/2017 12:30:47 PM EDT
Some of my research has lead me to believe that the 10.3" is brutal on the Knights can (or any can) but the NT4 can take most of the abuse.  Depending on the firing schedule, about 6000 rounds could wear out the first blast baffle.  Does anyone have any experience with running a knights can on a 10.3"?

I think the 14.5" would extend the can's life - but I am certainly no expert.  Any help or info would be appreciated.  Thanks,
Link Posted: 4/17/2017 12:39:26 PM EDT
This KAC NT4 has around 10k w/ the majority being on 10.5/10.3.  Some of it on a 14.5.  No difference in sound, just gas blow back.

Link Posted: 4/17/2017 1:06:39 PM EDT
There is a theoretical benefit to baffle life and sound reduction by going to a 14.5" barrel, and a real, tangible benefit to balance and overall length by keeping the 10.5" barrel.
Link Posted: 4/17/2017 1:51:15 PM EDT
Thanks gents.  So it sounds like I should probably stay with the 10.3" barrel and nt4 combo. I also hate the idea of running a 14.5" that is a registered SBR.- more like hate the law requiring that
Link Posted: 4/17/2017 2:40:05 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
There is a theoretical benefit to baffle life and sound reduction by going to a 14.5" barrel, and a real, tangible benefit to balance and overall length by keeping the 10.5" barrel.
View Quote
Wow well put.  Thats the most intelligent way of arguing barrel length vs baffle wear that I have heard.

Because how many of us are really going to "wear out" a suppressor.
Link Posted: 4/19/2017 5:44:08 AM EDT
You could also use one of these to help with blast baffle erosion. MAMS NT4 comp, triple tap, and hate to say it, a griffin armament NT4 comp.

Link Posted: 4/19/2017 8:44:06 AM EDT
I would probably go with the MAMS NT4 comp.  But does it really protect the can longer by acting as a first baffle?  I read on another site that KAC doesn't warranty the triple tap with can use. (source was Kevin B).
Link Posted: 4/19/2017 1:39:13 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
I would probably go with the MAMS NT4 comp.  But does it really protect the can longer by acting as a first baffle?  I read on another site that KAC doesn't warranty the triple tap with can use. (source was Kevin B).
View Quote
I run comps on all my sbr's fpr that reason. I also run my sbr's suppressed 90% of the time.

Link Posted: 4/19/2017 1:50:39 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/19/2017 3:45:56 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
I would probably go with the MAMS NT4 comp.  But does it really protect the can longer by acting as a first baffle?  I read on another site that KAC doesn't warranty the triple tap with can use. (source was Kevin B).
View Quote
I remember that being mentioned.  The real culprit for that "policy", was because during full auto testing on belt fed MGs, there was a possibility of the triple tap expanding or ballooning inside the NT4. Making it almost impossible to remove.  I don't have any full auto's, yet, and it was a crazy amount of rounds shot to where it caused that issue. Probably on like a M249 or similar.
Top Top