Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 12/12/2002 7:36:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/12/2002 7:38:38 PM EDT by CANADIAN_TACTICAL]
The Diemaco C7CT w/ Z-Jet can


McMillan Tac-50 w/ BR Tuote Reflex Suppressor


The C6 (Mag-58/M240) w/ Z-Jet Dual


The C9 w/ BR Tuote T4 Reflex Can


C9 w/ Z-Jet

C9 w/ Knights RAS



I forgot my point with this - will return later
-Kevin
Link Posted: 12/12/2002 9:30:30 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/13/2002 4:00:45 PM EDT by Green0]
That's right you lucky bastards (EDITED I guess the opposite is true) in Canada can have true FA suppressors (EDITED B&T might blow up?)(IE BRUGER and THOMET) I called but they said they can only import to LEO's I like that (how you removed the top saw handguard)< it would have melted or fallen off anyway. SAWS are the lowest quality we (US ARMED FORCES) have stooped to since the grease gun. NOW THE 240B THAT IS A WEAPON!<200-600m 3-shots 1 kill. like a beltfed sniper rifle. ALso the foregrip on the stock of that SAW is a nice touch I was trying to figure out how to put one on my M-4 when I gave up I couldn't figure it out. [b]when is Canada going to design an infantry weapon?[/b]
Link Posted: 12/12/2002 10:15:29 PM EDT
Green0 In Canada we as individuals have no rights to suppressors :( The B&T Can is a POS IMHO - we had a number of failures with them - a friend of mine caught some shrapnel from one. KAC and GEMTECH both makes FA cans. Suppressed weapons I believe are the future for Infantry/Ground troops. I like the SAW - but they get beat up to easily. The RAS is a must have itme for it. The K rip mounted to the side is efective (but weird) as well. Just Imagine a Platoon sized - or Section/Squad Ambush - no muzzle flashes and very little in the way of detectible muzzle blast to give the positions away. (hint) Use belts with no tracer If you wish to mount a foregrip you are best off mounting a RAS (or better yet a RASII) -Kevin
Link Posted: 12/12/2002 10:27:57 PM EDT
I am not sure what this thread is about but looks like suppressors and the like. [image]http://www.triplebreakproducts.com/images/TBP/mvc00013.jpg[/image] Here is an AR15 pistol style AOW toy with a Coastal M-223 .223 SS suppressor using inconel buffers.
Link Posted: 12/13/2002 7:04:45 AM EDT
budam- Do you have a picture of the internals of these new Coastal cans (or other similar .223 cans)? I would like to compare it to the old style that I have. -Nuke
Link Posted: 12/13/2002 3:48:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/13/2002 3:55:33 PM EDT by Green0]
What is a POS IMHO (piece of shit and I don't get the rest) What conditions did these explode under? were you using the(reflex) Ranger (the one with like 8-12baffles or the scout [FA type] with 4 baffles)? I don't know why they act like they can't explode if they do. Do I hear lawsuit? at least American companies tell us up front that they're suppressors will explode and under what conditions they will. From what I heard Gemtech cans were good for under 100rds of FA and KAC for 200-300rds. From what they say on their website their cans are Full auto impervious I hear that the Army in Finland fields B&T on all assualt rifles. They have these on beltfeds too. [b]I hope they act soon If I had had one on my M-16 I would still have perfect hearing in my right ear I'ld like to see an RAS equipped M-16 that had what looked like FF handgaurds but were actually part of the main body of a reflex< IE behind the muzzle suppressor (why not? it wouldn't get any bigger and the weight would be replacing some of the handguards {of course they'ld need a carbon fiber guard for hands} so they could probably do this with 9lbs or so as the total weight of the rifle[/b]
Link Posted: 12/13/2002 4:01:32 PM EDT
IMHO = [b]I[/b]n [b]M[/b]y [b]H[/b]umble [b]O[/b]pinion
Link Posted: 12/13/2002 5:21:17 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Green0: From what I heard Gemtech cans were good for under 100rds of FA and KAC for 200-300rds. From what they say on their website their cans are Full auto impervious I hear that the Army in Finland fields B&T on all assualt rifles.
View Quote
I think you are Mistaking B&T (Brugger and Thomett - of Switzerland) with BR Tuote of Finland. The B&T can is crap, the BR Tuote is not. -Kevin
Link Posted: 12/13/2002 6:13:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/13/2002 6:25:12 PM EDT by Green0]
Yep I was all mixed up it turns out they are BR-Tuote and the Ranger is the FA 4 baffle can and the Scout is the 8 baffle can for semi auto and limited FA use. What I gather though is that the Br-Tuote Ranger is advertised to withstand unlimited FA fire (or so it seems). Is this true (if you have any experience with these) ? If so Why can these guys attain something no-one else can seem to achieve? And if they can mass produce these for $20 dollars through Norinco in China (which I vaguely remember reading on their site) why doesn't the US Army field one of these on every M-16 SAW and 240B? Is a GI's concealment, hearing, and command and control measures all lumped into one not worth $20USD?
Link Posted: 12/13/2002 8:04:08 PM EDT
CT, What are you guys using to get the camo color? Also bringing something from the othere thread, is it true the " Pilgrims" for the Regiment got a few 20" heavy barrel rifles along with the C8s ? I heard it from non reliable source :) Thanks Ariel
Link Posted: 12/13/2002 8:51:40 PM EDT
Green0 I for one would not trust any weapons part for our issue wpn to make in China. Secondly - Nothing is indestructible. Period. The KAC can has a much nicer locking mech. I would love to see a KAC QD system on a true reflex can like the T4. Who knows - maybe pigs will fly[;)] The German Army has recently descided to suppress of its small arms- Army wide. I would lokk to most NATO countries following suit shortly. One of the biggest kickers seems to be troops hearing losses and the VA benefits. -Kevin
Link Posted: 12/13/2002 11:02:55 PM EDT
CT - I have to ask: how do the KAC cans stand up to abuse? I keep hearing that they have a rep. for [i]occasionally[/i] launching off the muzzle and flying downrange. Gemtechs seem to fair better, but are also more difficult to remove after extended use, due to carbon fowling gumming up the QD mechanism. I kind of like that the KAC's are desinged to accomodate removal when fouling builds up, but would rather that it also stay on the muzzle until [i]I[/i] decide to remove it. What say you? BTW - what is a [i]reflex[/i] can?
Link Posted: 12/13/2002 11:19:25 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/13/2002 11:30:31 PM EDT by Green0]
http://guns.connect.fi/rs/ That is a link to Br-Tuote's page (For the reflex suppressor.) I just see alot of people insisting on small size and weight when this is exactly why these designs heat and are destroyed so fast. Even the KAC (200-300rds FA fire) is suffering from the size and weight thing (7000 rd service life) This sounds like a lot but these don't cool very fast so every round adds up. 500rds and that can is probably very near or past destruction. [b]AAC makes a design that is quicker to mount and remove the M-4 2000 takes about 1.5 seconds to attach (put it on and spin it 2 turns) I think the KAC is a little confusing that's probably why they are flying down range- they have 3 locking mechanisms and that is not GI proof< when the GI forgets to engage 1 or 2 : )[/b] The Reflex is actually 2-3 in shorter than the KAC (but has more volume). I think the Br-Tuotes are light too. I don't see why a suppressor has to be slimmer in diameter than the handguards. You can't see through the handguards. It seems like people are demanding the impossible (high DB reduction and NO size) and they are getting a compromised durability.
Link Posted: 12/14/2002 1:07:50 AM EDT
Originally Posted By NUCULAR: budam- Do you have a picture of the internals of these new Coastal cans (or other similar .223 cans)? I would like to compare it to the old style that I have. -Nuke
View Quote
At this time no. If someone from Northern MA/ Southern New Hampshire wants to drop by and see one, five a call and set up a appointment.
Link Posted: 12/14/2002 5:48:26 AM EDT
GreenO My BR Tuote T4AR weighs 325 grams/ 11.5 oz. MN
Link Posted: 12/14/2002 10:12:31 AM EDT
One most also understand that most military's also want a can that will attach to the A2 style muzzle break (or the simialr KAC design) If you go to a different version you lose the bayonet mount, and over the barrel GL's (not a big loss) A reflex can is a can that reflexes back over the barrel - as opposed tot he original muzzle moutn cans that stick out way past. -Kevin
Link Posted: 12/14/2002 10:42:49 AM EDT
Kevin, Sorry to be a pain. what is that finish on the CT rifle mate? Dont tell me is plasticol or Krylon , I'll be sick :) BTW is have you a picture anywher of the flash suppresor combo thingy form the SF carbine on the Diemaco page?
Link Posted: 12/14/2002 3:09:40 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/14/2002 3:10:13 PM EDT by CANADIAN_TACTICAL]
Ariel - ah whats wrong with Krylon :) Honestly I don't know - it is a Diemaco demo gun. The only place I have seen the Diemaco SF guns are on their webpage Sorry. Someone who used to post here - 2 or so years ago used to work for Diemaco - he had some great shots - but he seems to have disappeared. -Kevin
Link Posted: 12/15/2002 12:14:35 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Green0: I just see alot of people insisting on small size and weight when this is exactly why these designs heat and are destroyed so fast...It seems like people are demanding the impossible (high DB reduction and NO size) and they are getting a compromised durability.
View Quote
I have noticed this trend. Seems that, unless newer materials (ceramics?) w/improved heat resistence/wear characteristics can be developed, the current stainless/inconel designs need to maintain a certain min. volume to ensure decent reliability.
Even the KAC (200-300rds FA fire) is suffering from the size and weight thing (7000 rd service life) This sounds like a lot but these don't cool very fast so every round adds up. 500rds and that can is probably very near or past destruction.
View Quote
How does Gemtech's M4-96D compare to KAC's?
I think the KAC is a little confusing that's probably why they are flying down range- they have 3 locking mechanisms and that is not GI proof< when the GI forgets to engage 1 or 2 : )[/b]
View Quote
I can see how this would be possible. Looking at the KAC mount, the redundancy of its locking design seems to be an effective - if not quick & simple - means of securing the can to the muzzle.
Link Posted: 12/15/2002 5:24:46 AM EDT
Our M4 "QD" Sound Suppressor was developed for a USSOCOM requirement administered through a Navy contracting element at Crane, IN. approximately six years ago. We won the competition because ours was the only suppressor to survive (repeatidly) a late developing requirement to fire 210 rounds full-auto as fast as one can load and fire seven fully loaded magazines. I emphasis "late developing", because up to that point dB reduction and weight/size were primary design drivers. When the 210 FA requirement was communicated, we asked why? Answer was, "if a point man is effecticely engaged, he may be required to fire most/all his basic load without the opportunity to remove the suppressor at some pre-determined safety point". Made sense to us. Consequently, material and weight changes were made (i.e., new, tougher material was more expensive, very hard to machine, and heavier as well) to meet the FA evolving requirement. Our final design won hands down however, and it was the one to get the National Stock Number, safety certification, etc. After initial deliveries, the redundant "circular" lock was added to prevent the gate from opening inadvertently. Then some Ranger/Airborne Soldiers showed us a way to detent this circular lock as well (thanks guys), and this has been incorportated in all new production for the past several years. We also developed, provided samples, offered this as a retrofit kit, but no one has ever ordered any of the kits. So the result is that there are certainly early models still out in the field and in use. Early on we heard of suppressors failing. We learned subsequently that imaginative users had mounted the A2 like "QD" FS/Compensator on M249 SAW's. Well the supressor was not developed against such a "machine gun" requirement. It was made to meet an M4A1 Carbine requirement. So somewhere into the third 200-round SAW magazine, the thing gives up. But then this suppressor looks real broke. As a former Ornance Officer, my concern is, an unknowing Soldier being issued a suppressor that was originally installed on a SAW, was "cooked" (fired over 400 rounds) repeatidly over time while on a machine gun, but otherwise appears serviceable. So it is no surprise to me that some users may not have the best opinion of this product, given they have no knowledge of its liife history. Allso, reports of "failures" are typically blown (sorry, poor choice of words here) out of porportion--especially in the very small sound suppressor world. And no matter what the facts were (e.g., "somewhere into the third 200-round magazine it got glowing red-hot, and a hole blew out the side"...and yes, luckily no one was hurt and the gun is ok") you can't shake the rap. The most important point I wish to make is that sound suppressors for unrestricted military use as described above, are not viable commercial products, mostly because our government makes it too dificult for most of us to own a ssuppressor; and secondly, 99% of commercial customers want maximum dB reduction and very light weight--two things not very compatible with FA machine gun employment. So the idea that a "commercial off-the-shelf" product will meet severe military environmental requirements is pretty remote. ColdBlue sends...
Link Posted: 12/15/2002 10:16:58 AM EDT
Dave, glad to hear from you on this. On the KAC can, everything I have ever used from KAC has been first rate. Because I have only seen it used, not played with it myself it do not feel qualified to comment on it. The unfortunate price to pay with items in service in the military is that some troops/commnaders are going to expose equipmnet to circumstances that they were not designed for - sometimes this is necessary - but more often it is not. The if/when the equipment fails - the equipment gets blamed. -Kevin
Link Posted: 12/15/2002 2:42:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/15/2002 2:44:05 PM EDT by Green0]
I've seen 2 SAW's subjected to about 15 firers and around 2000 rds in less than 20 minutes (yes they were switched out "to cool" for every other firer)
Link Posted: 12/15/2002 2:54:37 PM EDT
Green0 I have seen the M240/C6 and M249/C9 get a lot worse than that. Open bolt guns don't have the cook off problems like closed bolts (M2 Hot barrel unload drills anyone) Worst case you will smoke the barrel. However when you add a suppressor the barrel life with sustained burst decreases dramtically.
Top Top