Posted: 9/5/2004 1:46:36 PM EDT
|
http://www.sogarmory.com/ProductDetails.aspx?productID=101351 anyone know if that vortex flash hider is any good? I heard the ones with straight prongs broke easily. That's why they got the ones with the turn in them. any input? |
|
They changed to the slanted design so that the expanding gasses would tighten the Votrex unit. Some earlier designs had problems with expanding after many many rounds were fired, but the change to a slanted design was not to correct that problem. ETA: I have one Vortex (new slanted design) and one Phantom and they're both great. |
|
all the pix on Smith Enterprise's website show straight tine style Vortex flash hiders. www.smithenterprise.com/0100_Vortex_Page.htm |
|
They are NOT straight. I know it looks that way in the pics, but when looked at head-on, there is a noticible slant to the tines, giving the gasses a swirl as they exit, hence the name Vortex. Also, it's that vortex action that helps in suppressing the flash, as it forces air from outside the barrel to mix better with the combustion gasses, thus cooling them faster and preventing the flash. One thing I'm curious about is the blue-green "corrosion" that appears on the inside base of my tines when the weapon is stored in a humid place for extended periods, as I am forced to do for now... 
|
I love it. It looks great, is easy to maneuver with, and flash is nil. Muzzle rise is not any worse than with a 16-inch barrel. As for dust signature, I'm afraid I really can't say as I've not fired it prone in quite awhile, and even then never really looked for it one way or the other. Overall, I'd give it two thumbs up. I was going to replace it with a standard A2 suppressor, but I was talked out of it, and I'm glad I was. |
|
Link made hot . www.sogarmory.com/ProductDetails.aspx?productID=101351 |
|
Just ordered one from Brownels for $45.03 after shipping. Was SERIOUSLY considering the phantom because it's supposedly almost as good at reducing flash, but about 1/2 the price. Finally ended up deciding on the G-6 vortex because it does not need to be timed and is easier to install myself. Timing the phantom would require washers/spacers, which is an added cost, and then I would have to goof with the number and torque to get it timed properly. None of the sites I browsed for phantom pricing said whether they include washer/spacers or not. Didn't want to find out they dont. The phantom is probably still pretty easy to put on right, but I want that damn flash suppressor on IMMEDIATELY as the AWB sunsets, and the vortex is EASY to install (just screw it on by hand) and is a great flash suppressor according to everyone. |
I don't think I would buy from people who don't know the difference between a flash suppressor and a flash hider and that think the '94 ban was about assault rifles.
|
Ummmmm..... The quoted statement is accurate. If the law is dumb, it's certiainly not THEIR fault... |
| Rummage around at www.entreprise.com/. They list more different types of Vortex FS units than Smith Enterprises, the manufacturer. |
From the manufacturer's web site, linked above: "The Vortex incorporates a helix design essentially tightening itself when the weapon is fired and helps align exiting barrel gas to improve accuracy with all bullet types. - "Left Hand" slots for left hand threads - "Right Hand" slots for right hand threads Flash suppression is not effected with straight slot muzzle devices." |
Outstanding! They have one! |
I have three (or four?) of these--I obtained them from Olympic Arms about ten years ago. They have no name on them to indicate who the mfr. was. The tines are definitely straight and there is NO flash whatsoever--none, even in complete darkness. They are amazing. I was at an AR15.com shoot where three of the four tines cracked and broke off of another guy's Vortex. So far, no problem with any of mine. 
|
No, the quoted statement is not correct. The 1994 AWB never labeled our rifles as assault rifles, but as "Semiautomatic Assault Weapons". You will not find "assault rifle" in that law. It is THEIR fault if they or anyone else does not know the difference between an assault rifle and a so-called semiautomatic assault rifle. I guess the confusion that the antis hoped to create about the difference between the 2 is working, even on gun owners who should know better. Also, they and many others don't seem to know the difference between a flash suppressor and a flash hider. |
|
Ah, this was the thread I was replying to when my computer crashed last night. OK, in the beginning there were straight prong Vortices, like the ones in Mongo's pic. They are called Vortex because of the offsets on the INTERIOR of the tines. Look at Mongo's first pic for a clue. They worked really really well esp considering the competition available in the late 80's. The only problem they had was the couter rotation created by the propellant gasses eventualy loosened them. This was a bigger concern with the shorter barrels. Much Loc-Tite and torque was needed to keep them in place. Smith Enterprises (SE) changed the design to incorporate helical flutes that off set the counter rotation. The helical flute model worked very very well and didn't come loose. They worked so well that SE couldn't keep up with demand. SE changed the design slightly to increase production. I've always called this design change the "straight flute" model because the cuts don't appear to curve around the circumference of the FS. On this changed model the flutes are just cut at an angle to the bore line. The manufacturing change caused the prongs to be undercut at their base. There are the models that failed. SE claimed faulty heat treat on them but after checking several new ones against several known good ones the only difference found was the undercut tines. Here's a close up from a recently posted pic showing the undercuts.  There was also a FS called the Brennan Nil-Flash. It looked somewhat like the Vortex but wasn't as aesthetic being just a cylinder with 4 internally curved prongs and straight flutes. Many of these were modified to look more like Vortices by shortening them and turning a groove into the ends. There was no way to modify the prongs so they still lack the triangular profiles used on the Vortex. |
Well, I'm certainly relieved to finally see visual proof that my Vortex is NOT undercut! I had read descriptions before (pretty good ones, too), but not seen pics. Thanks! |
All the credit goes to a member whose handle I can't remember. IIRC he is in Finland. I haven't been able to find the original thread anywhere despite it being one of "My Active Topics" He had a beautifully mushroomed Vortex and was kind enough to post a detailed pic when I asked him. You're welcome nonetheless. |
Tuukuo? |
|
Not even sure about the Finland part Bump, been talking to a lot of folks recently. Quite a few when I would have been better off sleeping. I'll turn it up again. ETA, Found it, pic was by M4A2_LO73754 of FIN. |
|
raf, Forest arranged for me to test the protoypes of the new closed bottom Phantoms. I tested them against A1, A2, 3 prong, helical Vortex, and standard Phantom. I saw no difference between the saw tooth Phantoms and the ones with smooth ends. Test barrels were all 16" with ammo from the same SA battlepack. All the Phantoms worked on par with the Vortx and far above the USGI FSs. |