Armory Sponsor
Posted: 1/30/2022 8:46:43 AM EDT
|
Question: How much do I have to worry about Taper Mounts "walking" and causing baffle strikes? I have a Hybrid 46, a EA Nyx in jail and really looking at the EA ARX for my next can. I have a couple ARs and an AR9 and, not applicable here, a threaded PSA dagger and Walther PPQ 22 tactical. I don't have anything full auto, FRTs or binary triggers, so rapid fire isn't a concern. I know that the DA Key-Mo is legit and the gun won't go anywhere. Cost and weight make me want to know all the other options. How secure are the taper options? I think I remember hearing that once the taper ring heats up, it seals better to the can, which will help prevent the can from "walking off?" Any help would be amazing. And to maybe go down the rabbit hole, what's your favorite QD system? Thanks! Hamilton |
|
Quoted: Question: How much do I have to worry about Taper Mounts "walking" and causing baffle strikes? I have a Hybrid 46, a EA Nyx in jail and really looking at the EA ARX for my next can. I have a couple ARs and an AR9 and, not applicable here, a threaded PSA dagger and Walther PPQ 22 tactical. I don't have anything full auto, FRTs or binary triggers, so rapid fire isn't a concern. I know that the DA Key-Mo is legit and the gun won't go anywhere. Cost and weight make me want to know all the other options. How secure are the taper options? I think I remember hearing that once the taper ring heats up, it seals better to the can, which will help prevent the can from "walking off?" Any help would be amazing. And to maybe go down the rabbit hole, what's your favorite QD system? Thanks! Hamilton I don’t think you have to worry about the can becoming loose from a mount/muzzle device as long as put it on with moderate and light rotational force. The harder you snug them in, the harder they are to get off. If anything for your hybrid you have to worry about the mount coming unthreaded from the can and being left behind on the muzzle device. Also for the hybrid, if you are shooting anything but 45 caliber it’s hotdog down a hallway and I wouldn’t worry about a baffle strike. |
| I also have a Hybrid 46 and went with Griffin Plan A. Plan A supports up to .46 caliber so it can be used on everything the Hybrid supports. Most others only support up to 9mm bore, but I'm sure Todd will release a .46 Xeno down the road. I've never had a Griffin taper walk loose. The only problem I've had is if you tighten again when the can is hot, it usually stays on so good that the plan A unthreads from the can when you try to take the can off. Some rocksett on the mount should fix that issue though or just dont tighten it any more after the initial cold mating. |
|
There was some test for the Saudi government that LWRC was trying to find a can that could pass and it involved 210 rounds of full auto and semi auto rapid fire in about 2.5 minutes on an 8” 6.8 spc UICW. This was way back in 2013. Surefire and AAC cans failed. The surefire had a ~1/2” bore through most of the baffles after the first baffle, almost as if they were engineered to relieve system pressure under torture testing (I have an edm sectioned picture of the can), the AAC can had several broken welds. Our can initially failed- weld failure and seperation at 191rds. We then modified our welding parameters and got a tubeless Recce 7 to pass- minor baffle wear, no bore size change- can could have done the test probably 20 times conservatively with air cooling between cycles, but the standard didn’t call for cycles. We were told it was the only can to pass, and I believe we transferred it to LWRC with a video of the test. The 8” 6.8 uicw is probably similar to 12.5” .308. It is a terribly tough category for a suppressor. No can walked in our testing of that. No suppressor order transpired but I think part of that was the Saudis had requested oversized gas ports for poor maintenance and desert sand conditions on the already sold guns, and those didn’t play nice with can technology at that time. The gun had rate of fire like a micro uzi, and it would occasionally overspeed the magazine feed like three times in 210 rds. Maybe 1300rpm? Fastest ROF Ive ever seen on an AR platform. I have many times put recce 5’s through 210 rds in less than three minutes and no can has ever walked off. We have put several thousands of rounds through recce 7’s on 240’s, up to 400 rds in a session and the taper mounts have never walked off. I have simply never had one of our taper mounts loosen in any way, and have never had a strike caused by a taper mount walking off. When you are running them harder, you should use the lock cease anti seize product to ensure they come off easier, and 1.375” is not a tapered interface so I haven’t done much hard use of it and can’t vouch for how good retention of it is. I would expect 1.375 to be the source of any walking off. Taper mounts from different manufacturers are all different. Higher numbered included angles will release more easily. Engineering compromises between security and ease of removal do happen, so one feeling cannot be applied to the whole class of product. Demonstrably there are manufacturers like area 419 who have admitted their tapers don’t actually contact at least according to posters here, and they obviously don’t understand the technology at all. Ops / allen for example have a lot of distance between the two points of contact, demonstrating a third attribute that plays into security with a higher numbered angle. I believe from vague memory of drawings for interfacing theirs is 25 or maybe 30 degrees. They apparently sold machine gun cans to the military using that interface so obviously it is secure. |
|
Quoted: Question: How much do I have to worry about Taper Mounts "walking" and causing baffle strikes? I have a Hybrid 46, a EA Nyx in jail and really looking at the EA ARX for my next can. I have a couple ARs and an AR9 and, not applicable here, a threaded PSA dagger and Walther PPQ 22 tactical. I don't have anything full auto, FRTs or binary triggers, so rapid fire isn't a concern. I know that the DA Key-Mo is legit and the gun won't go anywhere. Cost and weight make me want to know all the other options. How secure are the taper options? I think I remember hearing that once the taper ring heats up, it seals better to the can, which will help prevent the can from "walking off?" Any help would be amazing. And to maybe go down the rabbit hole, what's your favorite QD system? Thanks! Hamilton You'll do great with any taper mount system. The weight/simplicity/cost concern is why we introduced the Xeno system. It addresses a lot of the small issues out there with other systems (like unthreading the adapter in the suppressor when removing from the host weapon). Watch for taper systems that have really minimal tapers and/or large angles on the taper. They loosen more easily and some rely on secondary retention to work. They work for the masses by and large, but there are now better systems out that provide better repeatability and retention. (ETA: I just saw what GreenO said above in bold and agree) Among all my R&D and personal weapons, I'm split about 50/50 for KeyMo and Xeno at this point. Quoted: I also have a Hybrid 46 and went with Griffin Plan A. Plan A supports up to .46 caliber so it can be used on everything the Hybrid supports. Most others only support up to 9mm bore, but I'm sure Todd will release a .46 Xeno down the road. I've never had a Griffin taper walk loose. The only problem I've had is if you tighten again when the can is hot, it usually stays on so good that the plan A unthreads from the can when you try to take the can off. Some rocksett on the mount should fix that issue though or just dont tighten it any more after the initial cold mating. @IndyJoeShmo The first .46 Xeno (5/8-24 Xeno Xero) just went on sale and looks like it sold out. There are more to come. Todd Magee Dead Air Engineering |
|
Quoted: You'll do great with any taper mount system. The weight/simplicity/cost concern is why we introduced the Xeno system. It addresses a lot of the small issues out there with other systems (like unthreading the adapter in the suppressor when removing from the host weapon). Watch for taper systems that have really minimal tapers and/or large angles on the taper. They loosen more easily and some rely on secondary retention to work. They work for the masses by and large, but there are now better systems out that provide better repeatability and retention. (ETA: I just saw what GreenO said above in bold and agree) Among all my R&D and personal weapons, I'm split about 50/50 for KeyMo and Xeno at this point. @IndyJoeShmo The first .46 Xeno (5/8-24 Xeno Xero) just went on sale and looks like it sold out. There are more to come. Todd Magee Dead Air Engineering Thanks Todd! Now get back to work on that 5.56 can :) |
|
Quoted: Taper mounts from different manufacturers are all different. Higher numbered included angles will release more easily. Engineering compromises between security and ease of removal do happen, so one feeling cannot be applied to the whole class of product.[/b] Of note is the thread pitch relationship with the angle. We run a very acute angle of 12° included on our Gyrex, but with coarser 12P threads. The effort to break them loose is similar to your 16° taper with 20P threads. I initially made them with a 20° included angle, which proved too obtuse for the 12P threads with heavy full auto fire. Changing the thread pitch to 20 or 24 would have worked, but I chose instead to keep the coarser threads for speed and make the angle more acute. Conversely, our (large surface area) 12° taper with finer threads would lock up too hard. Always a balancing act. |
|
Quoted: Of note is the thread pitch relationship with the angle. We run a very acute angle of 12 included on our Gyrex, but with coarser 12P threads. The effort to break them loose is similar to your 16 taper with 20P threads. I initially made them with a 20 included angle, which proved too obtuse for the 12P threads with heavy full auto fire. Changing the thread pitch to 20 or 24 would have worked, but I chose instead to keep the coarser threads for speed and make the angle more acute. Conversely, our (large surface area) 12 taper with finer threads would lock up too hard. Always a balancing act.  Muzzle devices aren't cheap, but there's a lot more to it than appears on the surface. The knowledge here always impresses me. |
|
i have a xeno mount on a MG7 224 that is shared between a 16" and 10.3" AR. the mount itself has walked off the can because i didnt tighten it enough. i bought the correct socket and snugged her on, she hasnt come loose. i have never had the whole can/mount work itself loose from any firing schedule. if i take off the can to switch between hosts, i usually try and make sure the taper is clear of any carbon/debris; food for thought. in fact, if i tighten the can/mount too tight on the muzzle, its a PITA to get it off. deadair really knocked it out of the park with the xeno; IMO its a refined/better thought out q system. |
|
Quoted: The right solution with a taper mount is to use a simple and secure locking mechanism.. ( Sold this type globally for over 10 years to both civilian and MIL/LE use ) Meh, with a properly designed and machined taper mount, secondary retention is superfluous |
|
Quoted: The right solution with a taper mount is to use a simple and secure locking mechanism.. ( Sold this type globally for over 10 years to both civilian and MIL/LE use ) The taper mount itself is simple and secure. no latch to forget, no twisting. I've never had a taper mount come loose. I've only had a problem with a form 1 SDTA tube coming off its taper mount adapter, but I just rocksetted the adapter to the can and it should be good. |
| Our taper is 15 degrees and the thread pitch 20. In your 12 and 12 relationship you probably can use a more fine taper because there is less wringing of the tapered surfaces going on with the coarser thread. Our system allows the tapers to slide over each other to a point they are basically rung like guage blocks with total contact. |
|
Quoted: Meh, with a properly designed and machined taper mount, secondary retention is superfluous I agree it is superfluous, but a percentage of people (and most government organizations) who cannot understand the dynamics going on with tapered systems that are properly designed, or who have had negative experiences with mounting solutions that don’t stay secure, want a superflous, weight adding system they can immediately see is providing security in order to have the faith to purchase. A lot of US market systems provide superfluous devices that ironically don’t actually lock, but only “secure differently than tapers”, and they still appeal to that set of customers who want to see a mechanism they can more readily understand. If a customer requires something superfluous to buy, it is unfortunately a necessary superfluous item at that point. People also like to play around with gadgets and pay more for over-complicated things like tourbillon watch escapements which are no longer believed to improve time-keeping accuracy. |
|
Quoted: I agree it is superfluous, but a percentage of people (and most government organizations) who cannot understand the dynamics going on with tapered systems that are properly designed, or who have had negative experiences with mounting solutions that don't stay secure, want a superflous, weight adding system they can immediately see is providing security in order to have the faith to purchase. |
|
Quoted: It's also counter productive. Look how many people think the ratchet and not the taper, is what is keeping the YHM mounts secure. The ratchet is keeping the YHM secure. The taper/thread combo is too coarse to do that by itself. The detents prevent rotation after a certain point, but the mounting system didn't lock, it detented the suppressor (or effectively discouraged from loosening by providing resistance to loosening). I believe if you removed the spring and detent system from the YHM can and ran it hard for something like 210 rounds, the can would walk off and fail to continue to retain itself. There are users on this forum who have claimed their detents aren't seated when they tighten the can, rotation of the spring collar cannot seat them, and then after firing a few rounds, the can backs off to a point that the detents seat and at that point retain the suppressor, preventing further rotation. When these issues occur on taper/thread systems they may not occur for all mounts, because all the mounts are dimensioned +-.0005" or .001 on surfaces and that means the axial lockup changes slightly. AAC's 51T is an example of a locking mount- the spring pawl locks the mount from loosening, the issue with it is that the pawl may only lock when the suppressor is slightly loose from fully tightened. Surefire similarly has a locking pawl, but possesses a more fine thread on the collar, and generally can be collar reefed to a point of securing the suppressor when tightly in contact with the taper and simultaneously pawl secured. It's only issue is that the collar doesn't press the device evenly into the taper, but rather from one side, so there is a need for a forwardly displaced support ring and tightly confined diameter to keep the one side taper press from promoting much alignment error. Our Gate lok suppressors have a locking mount (the spring plate locks the gate down), but they get alignment from a very close tolerance bayonet fit of a muzzle device in a bore comprised of the rear mount bore, and forward support ring, so they are similar to Surefire in that regard, differing in that the fit is the only alignment feature, there is no taper. Sigs SRD was a taper mount that apparently could stand alone on the taper, but that had a locking mechanism that would only keep the can from being completely unscrewed- the lock didn't keep the can locked only in a tightly mounted configuration. So you have many systems with various merits, even within the locking attribute qualified systems on the market. |
|
Quoted: The ratchet is keeping the YHM secure. The taper/thread combo is too coarse to do that by itself. The detents prevent rotation after a certain point, but the mounting system didn't lock, it detented the suppressor (or effectively discouraged from loosening by providing resistance to loosening). I believe if you removed the spring and detent system from the YHM can and ran it hard for something like 210 rounds, the can would walk off and fail to continue to retain itself. There are users on this forum who have claimed their detents aren't seated when they tighten the can, rotation of the spring collar cannot seat them, and then after firing a few rounds, the can backs off to a point that the detents seat and at that point retain the suppressor, preventing further rotation. When these issues occur on taper/thread systems they may not occur for all mounts, because all the mounts are dimensioned +-.0005" or .001 on surfaces and that means the axial lockup changes slightly. Well, I guess I'm wrong then.  I always thought it was the taper that was doing the work and that the ratchet was a secondary system. |
|
Quoted: Well, I guess I'm wrong then. I always thought it was the taper that was doing the work and that the ratchet was a secondary system. YHM is another working system, nothing wrong with that, but it demonstrates how often the mechanical assemblies on the silencers have some negative attributes. Sig's new clutch lok shows how hard it is for a team of world class engineers at one of the most aggressive firearms companies in the world to do something great in the mount interface space. The system appears to push little nubs down on a smooth diameter under spring tension, and this according to them locks the system with friction. That's very similar to what the taper mounts already have been doing since the 80's. They have like 20+ components making that happen too. They definitely have one of the highest component counts in the mount interface space. I guess when I think about locking it would be nice to see something actually physically happen. Maybe the SIG system is great. It is hard to see that something great happened with a smooth diameter. |
|
Quoted: The taper mount itself is simple and secure. no latch to forget, no twisting. I've never had a taper mount come loose. I've only had a problem with a form 1 SDTA tube coming off its taper mount adapter, but I just rocksetted the adapter to the can and it should be good. Just zeroed this gun today. Silencer and mount came off in one piece. Blame SDTA, not taper mounts. They are my go to recommendation for new silencer owners. Plan A/XL don't limit you to just Griffin cans either. |
|
On the secondary retention, this is often now a bid/tender requirement. If the mount is well designed, it does not add a lot of weight for example. The mounting system that I was involved in developing and selling was not a ratchet type, had a quick adjustment to provide a tight fit and was very easy to use. |
| There is so much wisdom here. I regret not being able to find this forum until now! Thanks to @green0 and @mageever for being humble enough with your time to participate in this discussion. That is really awesome of y'all. I like the idea of a taper system, but I also like the look of YHM's Kurz adapter. Anyone on this thread have any experience? |
|
Quoted: On the secondary retention, this is often now a bid/tender requirement. If the mount is well designed, it does not add a lot of weight for example. The mounting system that I was involved in developing and selling was not a ratchet type, had a quick adjustment to provide a tight fit and was very easy to use. Of course, it's the reason the legacy Sig cans have a secondary latch. It was only included because that is what the .gov contracts they were chasing called for. But then they never won those contracts and now they have cans with an unnecessary secondary retention system. In the case of Sig, the latch would have been a simple delete for consumer/non-contract cans. |
|
Quoted: Sig's new clutch lok shows how hard it is for a team of world class engineers at one of the most aggressive firearms companies in the world to do something great in the mount interface space....They have like 20+ components making that happen too. They definitely have one of the highest component counts in the mount interface space. Never underestimate the ability of engineers to overengineer something. |
|
The only reasons to dislike taper mounts is either being unable to understand how tapers interface, or, experience with poorly designed taper mounts. Every machining center on the planet secures it's cutting tool the same way a taper mount works. With taper to taper interface and axial force. No one tells machine manufactures "Hey could you put a little spring clip on there too just so I feel better because I can't see the draw bar holding the retention knob." |
Armory Sponsor