Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 8/14/2003 9:45:44 AM EDT
I saw the article on Surefire's sound suppressor for the M4 that the USMC Special Forces has adopted and was wondering what the odds are of it becoming available to civilians. It would be the only American made reflex can available to civilians if they will sell it to us.
Link Posted: 8/14/2003 10:39:26 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/14/2003 10:41:24 AM EDT by SMGLee]
shhhhhh, it is suppose to be a secret. :) Berry Dueck is the man behind the process. Berry use to work for Phil and OPS, but I believe a buy out of the OPS failed so Surefire decided to build their own version and get into the suppressor business. They figure flashlight is an alloy tube and the suppress is also a tube, so why not. :) they bought some very very high dollar CNC machine and went to work few years ago and Berry been hard at work on the project. I believe he has brought some very innovative thinking to the table and the Surefire suppressors will be a good product. Just recently, Marine MARSOC Det 1 has adapted for operation use. Since Surefire is a Kalifornia company, I think they will have the same problem as OPS, it will not be available to civilian purchases. Than again, I could full of Sh%t!!! [:)]
Link Posted: 8/15/2003 9:09:11 PM EDT
Troy industries sells a reflex can right now it's QD too. The designer used to work at Ops inc.
Link Posted: 8/15/2003 9:58:38 PM EDT
I met Barry at the SOE shop many moons ago... Nice guy, and should be a VERY nice product also. -Cap'n
Link Posted: 8/15/2003 11:27:32 PM EDT
Kalifornya law expressly prohibits C3 mfg's from selling their wares to civilians. Unless they opt to produce it somewhere else, it won't happen. Once again, Joe (Taxpayer) Blow gets screwed.[:(!] At least KAC, Gemtech, AWC, AAC, & Troy are accessible.
Link Posted: 8/16/2003 2:12:46 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/16/2003 2:15:36 AM EDT by Pat_Rogers]
Detachment 1 has not adopted the SureFire can, contrary to the SOF article. It was tested, but all items were returned. The Det just took delivery of the KAC can from Quantico. Magazines have a lead time of several months, and some authors have limited (or in this case zero) acess to the user community. Instead he used single source material, and things have a habit of changing beween story write and story print. Barry is a great guy and a terrific designer. There is no doubt in my mind that SureFire will have a great article in the FA can. But the Det did not adopt it.
Link Posted: 8/16/2003 3:31:18 AM EDT
Pat Your info source is not correct! Jack
Link Posted: 8/16/2003 3:51:04 AM EDT
Hi Jack- (man, don't ever say that around TSA...) No, my information is correct. I am the civilian contractor assigned to Detachment 1 to provide the Weapons and Tactics Training. You can verify this with the CO of the Det. I conducted the Weapons and Tactics training of the Det in July. We used the cans for two weeks, and then removed them from the range. User confidence was low. I gave my input to the CO, as did the Shooters. The cans were returned to the manufacturer. Quantico sent us the KAC cans last week. We will use them for now. e- mail me.
Link Posted: 8/17/2003 11:28:11 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/17/2003 11:28:37 PM EDT by SMGLee]
Pat, One of your own, Travis Mitchel at Surefire Military sales was just telling me the can was adapted. this is news to me as far as the Surefire can being returned. then again, you are closer to the game.
Link Posted: 8/18/2003 2:00:01 AM EDT
I stand by my original statement. We evaluated the cans. They were returned.
Link Posted: 8/18/2003 3:02:55 AM EDT
PAT I understand the source of your info. Unfortunately there are things that were done/and or not with various cans as the case may be by untrained personel that you were not advised about. Do to some basic lack of knowledge and or direction from a certain officer, some misunderstandings and confusion caused some mis handling of test evals. To keep embarrassments from affecting anyone in the USMC, I suggest in fairness to all parties,(espec. the USMC) your further comments be curtailed untill a certain higer level judgement is made. In a gov't case like this, I do not believe that public discemination is a correct venue, do you? Jack
Link Posted: 8/18/2003 3:14:25 AM EDT
Jack I requested earlier that you contact me by e mail. However, you chose to bring it out. SureFire had people on site regularly. They responded immediately to our requests and questions. They provided training and information both on the range and off. However, your allegations re "a certain officer" and "untrained personell" are hogwash. SureFire is a class company. They make great lights. The cans did not perform to expectations. They have been returned. If Surefire wishes to engage in character assassination, that is their perogrative. I was there. I know what transpired.
Link Posted: 8/18/2003 4:00:00 AM EDT
PAT, You came out with info that is not accurate, plus put out info that should't be here in the first place. I didn't mention any names, but you openly discuss a company before everything is over, and that's fine? That's more than hogwash. Jack
Link Posted: 8/18/2003 4:21:21 AM EDT
Hi Jack, I responded to a thread that already mentioned SureFire. Please re-read. I have great faith in that company and admiration for it's people. However, i am not receiving my information from SureFire. I was present, as were Barry, Travis, and the others. I have no financial stake in this. The story was wrong. The can was not adopted. They were used. They were returned. There are no SureFire cans in the Armory. Your information about "not advised about" et al are incorrect. I understand the push here. SureFire has a reputation to uphold, and there is a considerable financial investment at stake. I would like to have seen a satisfactory conclusion to this. Enough. You want to talk, e mail me. I'll be happy to chat.
Link Posted: 8/18/2003 4:25:54 AM EDT
So, is 3rdtk going to turn every thread about military trials into a "I know more than you do even though I wasn't there nor did I do any extensive testing myself" thread? I have appreciated 3rdtk's input in the past, but this hasn't even been about any useful info. What's the deal? Why the attacks on Pat Rogers? He didn't give out any classified information. I don't think the adoption or the nonadoption of a suppressor is any big deal. He didn't bad mouth the Surefire suppressor, he just said it didn't perform to the expectations of MARSCOM. That could change and if it does, I'm sure Mr. Rogers will be kind enough to inform us if it is. Maybe it's the lack of sleep that's pissing me off, but I will delete this if it is inapproriate. However, I don't think 3rdtk responded in a manner that was appropriate either.
Link Posted: 8/18/2003 5:13:51 AM EDT
Pat, unfortunately I never got any e-mail from you, or IM message. My thoughts revolve around what a non involved civ. on here can hypothalise about, vs. what the gov't can respond to or elaborate on. In fairness to any contractor, anyway, that's my real issue here. Rgds, Jack
Link Posted: 8/18/2003 5:24:57 AM EDT
[puke]
Link Posted: 8/18/2003 5:36:48 AM EDT
My e mail is patrogers3@juno.com. I do not use IM.This boy is very computer unsavvy. We requested that Surefire did not release any information about the suppressor that would suggest endorsement at the start of this. They did anyway, apparently several months ago. If they didn't want info released, hey, they shouldn't have gone for the story at that time. Waiting until it was sorted out would have been a lot better for all and saved them the embarassment.
Link Posted: 8/18/2003 8:03:29 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/18/2003 8:03:48 AM EDT by DevL]
Mr. Rogers, On a related note can you confirm or deny that the Magpul M93 stock was slated as the new M4 stock or was that assertion premature also?
Link Posted: 8/18/2003 8:30:07 AM EDT
DevL, Mr Rogers was my Dad- please call me Pat. The Magpul M93 stock is being used (in tan...)
Link Posted: 8/18/2003 8:54:29 AM EDT
Guess I will have to mount my Magpul to my M16 this evening.... HEHEHEHEHE
Link Posted: 8/18/2003 9:10:23 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/18/2003 9:12:44 AM EDT by Green0]
Companies keep trying to make a more durable suppressor than the KAC M4 QD but they don't usually seem to understand the M4 QD is the only .223 suppressor on the market with inconel baffles, Tubing, and secondary sleeve (ventilated tube) to prevent tube ruptures. This is a heavy design (others try to stay lighter than a complete system weight of 24oz) Most others are trying to make more durable cans with Inconel baffles and a SS tube. It just doesn't work that way. The lighter can heats faster, and the SS tube will blow out before the dual stronger Inconel tubes of the KAC design. The M4 QD is nearing the point where it could be called old technology but no one has made a more advanced All Inconel design to compete with it.
Link Posted: 8/18/2003 12:14:11 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/19/2003 1:21:12 PM EDT by Master_Blaster]
Originally Posted By Green0: Companies keep trying to make a more durable suppressor than the KAC M4 QD but they don't usually seem to understand the M4 QD is the only .223 suppressor on the market with inconel baffles, Tubing, and secondary sleeve (ventilated tube) to prevent tube ruptures. This is a heavy design (others try to stay lighter than a complete system weight of 24oz) Most others are trying to make more durable cans with Inconel baffles and a SS tube. It just doesn't work that way. The lighter can heats faster, and the SS tube will blow out before the dual stronger Inconel tubes of the KAC design. The M4 QD is nearing the point where it could be called old technology but no one has made a more advanced All Inconel design to compete with it.
View Quote
I keep hearing of raving statements about Ops, Inc. cans & the company website claims they are self-cleaning & can handle sustained FA fire. I also understand they use a version of the sionics sonic "whistle" as part of the suppression system, but I have to wonder what the picture is regarding construction, & how they compare to KAC's tried-&-true M4QD?
Link Posted: 8/18/2003 12:50:22 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/18/2003 5:18:27 PM EDT
Originally Posted By MSTN: OPS INC SOUND SUPPRESSORS, AS WELL AS THEIR MUZZLE BRAKES, ARE PATENTED. I UNDERSTAND THAT THE PATENT EXPIRES IN FOUR YEARS. SO WE'LL HAVE TO WAIT AT LEAST THAT LONG IN ORDER TO FIND OUT JUST HOW PHIL SEBERGER REALLY DOES IT. THERE ARE FOLKS "IN THE SUPPRESSOR BUSINESS" WHO HAVE STATED TO ME THAT IT IS JUST NOT POSSIBLE TO DO WHAT THE OPS INC CANS DO WITH ONLY STAINLESS STEEL CONSTRUCTION. YET, MR SEBERGER CLAIMS THAT THEY ARE ALL STAINLESS. DO ANY OF THESE NEW CANS PRODUCE EQUAL OR BETTER ACCURACY WITH THE CAN INSTALLED, LIKE SEBERGER'S DO? WES
View Quote
Maybe it's Gnome Magic?
Link Posted: 8/18/2003 5:23:24 PM EDT
Wes is correct, not magic, just a whole lot more experience and varified gov't test results, that got him the SF orders. Jack
Link Posted: 8/18/2003 5:45:48 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/18/2003 5:58:38 PM EDT by inkaybee]
Originally Posted By MSTN: OPS INC SOUND SUPPRESSORS, AS WELL AS THEIR MUZZLE BRAKES, ARE PATENTED. I UNDERSTAND THAT THE PATENT EXPIRES IN FOUR YEARS. SO WE'LL HAVE TO WAIT AT LEAST THAT LONG IN ORDER TO FIND OUT JUST HOW PHIL SEBERGER REALLY DOES IT. THERE ARE FOLKS "IN THE SUPPRESSOR BUSINESS" WHO HAVE STATED TO ME THAT IT IS JUST NOT POSSIBLE TO DO WHAT THE OPS INC CANS DO WITH ONLY STAINLESS STEEL CONSTRUCTION. YET, MR SEBERGER CLAIMS THAT THEY ARE ALL STAINLESS. DO ANY OF THESE NEW CANS PRODUCE EQUAL OR BETTER ACCURACY WITH THE CAN INSTALLED, LIKE SEBERGER'S DO? WES
View Quote
Actually to receive a US patent one has to disclose all aspects of the patented design or process. Furthermore all patents are public information and can be found on line on the us patent office's web site. The idea of patent protection is to eventually get good ideas into the public realm so they do not die with the inventor. A patent aplicant trades his idea for 20 odd years of legally enforcable exclucivity. So if their design is patented and you want to know how they do it just look it up. Just don't copy them because they can sue you for all your profits.
Link Posted: 8/18/2003 6:00:49 PM EDT
Patents do not have to show every little thing and usually the savy patenters only show enough to get the patent, and not give away all of their trade secrets. By the way, patents run for 17 years, and then those can be extended via an improvement over the original by the orig. patent holder. A suppressor patent can hide many aspects that are also sealed into the can. Patents would not generaly mention the actual material used. Not many things can be made nearly as well as the original if only going by the description in the patent. Jack
Link Posted: 8/18/2003 6:07:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/18/2003 6:39:02 PM EDT by inkaybee]
Right, a trade secret is an entierly diffent thing than a patent. Wes said we had to wait four years for the patent to expire but it sounds like the good stuff is actually a secret and has nothing to do with the patent or the four years. That which is not disclose is not patented and therefore not protected. BTW seventeen years is from the the time the pattent issues which usually takes 3 or 4 years from the time of the application. You can get Patent pending protection from the time you apply so you can get 21 or 22 yaers most of the time. However, since the passage of GATT all pattens filed for on or after June, 7 1995 last for 20 years from the date of filing reguardless of when they issue. But you knew that, didn't you Jack?
Link Posted: 8/24/2003 8:04:55 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Green0: Companies keep trying to make a more durable suppressor than the KAC M4 QD
View Quote
***Heh. Are you an end-user of, or been around a lot of KAC M4QDs then? There are quieter, more durable, lighter suppressors than the KAC from many different sources. It's a pretty good can, esp. in the size envelope it's in, and the mount is pretty good, although could be better - evidenced by end-user complaints of the mount failing and launching the can.
but they don't usually seem to understand the M4 QD is the only .223 suppressor on the market with inconel baffles, Tubing, and secondary sleeve (ventilated tube) to prevent tube ruptures.
View Quote
***If the only thing it's got going for it is that it's made of Inconel, then it would be very easy to achieve this level of 'durability' - it's called phoning your tubing supplier and having him bring in some incalloys. And there's similar methods to the KAC perforated girdle (which only appeared and then grew AFTER the cans started failing while in service).
Most others are trying to make more durable cans with Inconel baffles and a SS tube. It just doesn't work that way. The lighter can heats faster, and the SS tube will blow out before the dual stronger Inconel tubes of the KAC design.
View Quote
***There's plenty of durable cans out on the market that are of mixed construction, usually due to the dual sidewall construction design. I haven't seen Gemtech or AAC cans (similar-to-same design) blowing out with heavy use on SAWs, much less M4s.
no one has made a more advanced All Inconel design to compete with it.
View Quote
***If making the rest of the parts out of inc-alloys were the magic recipe, I'm pretty sure it would have been done to death by now. If it's as simple as having your tubing company delivery inconel instead of SS tube to get a 'advanced' can, be certain someone would have done it. swtc
Link Posted: 8/24/2003 8:46:49 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/24/2003 8:47:25 PM EDT by Master_Blaster]
Originally Posted By swtc: ...There are quieter, more durable, lighter suppressors than the KAC from many different sources. It's a pretty good can, esp. in the size envelope it's in, and the mount is pretty good, although could be better - evidenced by end-user complaints of the mount failing and launching the can.
View Quote
In regards to the 'launching' issue, coldblue (works @ KAC) has mentioned that this was attributed to end-users failing to engage the redundancy latch (a.k.a. retaining ring) that locks the primary, guillotine-style locking latch into place. I also got it from Larry36 that the KAC seems to hold up in comparison to others he has used & rented; Gemtech M4-96D's rubberized seals & spring-loaded locking mechanism apparently doesn't hold up well to sustained use; difficult to remove when heavy carbon fouling builds up in the QD mechanism.
Link Posted: 8/25/2003 2:01:14 PM EDT
Hey all, I'm new to these boards as far as posting goes, but have been following them for some time. As for Knight's being the Gold Standard suppressor, I've been told that SWR's Specwar series is nothing short of Voodoo magic in its sound reduction. The Specwar2 mounts via the same bi-lock FH used by Gemtech. There will very soon be a head-to-head test of the Gemtech M496D and SWR Specwar2. It will be a completely non-scientific test, but fun nonetheless.....will let you know what we come up with. JoshNC
Link Posted: 8/25/2003 6:44:53 PM EDT
Originally Posted By 3rdtk: Wes is correct, not magic, just a whole lot more experience and varified gov't test results, that got him the SF orders. Jack
View Quote
------------- Speaking of USG testing, my suggesting is that everyone here check fire until Crane-NSWC releases the down-select of the FMBS-1 to replace the KAC QDSS. The results are in -- spoke with folks at Crane last week. they only need to finalize the report and get it blessed by the JAG folks. Just a few days.... My take is that we'll all be suprised that inconel is not the end-all some may think. Great stuff, but there's other ways to skin a cat, as they say.
Link Posted: 8/26/2003 2:55:06 AM EDT
Originally Posted By mach6:
Originally Posted By 3rdtk: Wes is correct, not magic, just a whole lot more experience and varified gov't test results, that got him the SF orders. Jack
View Quote
------------- Speaking of USG testing, my suggesting is that everyone here check fire until Crane-NSWC releases the down-select of the FMBS-1 to replace the KAC QDSS. The results are in -- spoke with folks at Crane last week. they only need to finalize the report and get it blessed by the JAG folks. Just a few days.... My take is that we'll all be suprised that inconel is not the end-all some may think. Great stuff, but there's other ways to skin a cat, as they say.
View Quote
Anxiously awaiting test results...
Link Posted: 8/26/2003 6:44:46 AM EDT
Originally Posted By JoshNC: Hey all, I'm new to these boards as far as posting goes, but have been following them for some time. As for Knight's being the Gold Standard suppressor, I've been told that SWR's Specwar series is nothing short of Voodoo magic in its sound reduction. The Specwar2 mounts via the same bi-lock FH used by Gemtech. There will very soon be a head-to-head test of the Gemtech M496D and SWR Specwar2. It will be a completely non-scientific test, but fun nonetheless.....will let you know what we come up with. JoshNC
View Quote
Does it use the EXACT BiLock Mount or just a similar mount. Does SWR even sell to civilians? I assume the Specwar2 will be quieter since its longer and heavier than the Gemtech M496D.
Link Posted: 8/26/2003 7:11:10 AM EDT
SWR licenses Gemtech's three-lug mount, as well as their LID for pistol cans. One can probably presume that SWR licenses Gemtech's Bilock mount as well. SWR sells to civilians through their distributors.
Link Posted: 8/26/2003 6:17:50 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Master_Blaster: Kalifornya law expressly prohibits C3 mfg's from selling their wares to civilians. Unless they opt to produce it somewhere else, it won't happen. Once again, Joe (Taxpayer) Blow gets screwed.[:(!] At least KAC, Gemtech, AWC, AAC, & Troy are accessible.
View Quote
isnt there some sort of federal commerce law that protects them from restricting their sales? This CA law sounds like a bunch of horseshit. Have any companies challenged it?
Link Posted: 8/26/2003 7:05:22 PM EDT
Actually, SWR will sell directly to civilians if they have the item in stock. Joe Gaddini is an absolute gentleman to deal with as well. I don't know whether the bi-lock is patented or not...haven't done a patent search relating to flash-suppressors. Josh
Link Posted: 8/27/2003 8:48:21 AM EDT
"***If the only thing it's got going for it is that it's made of Inconel, then it would be very easy to achieve this level of 'durability' - it's called phoning your tubing supplier and having him bring in some incalloys. And there's similar methods to the KAC perforated girdle (which only appeared and then grew AFTER the cans started failing while in service)." It may sound easy but there are more considerations... (Inconel is heavy, expensive, and time consuming to machine.) most companies see that list and right off an all inconel design (weight alone not to mention they do not have the equipment needed to make an all inconel suppressor cost effectively) KAC's perforated girdle is a lot of CNC machining- AND NO it was a full girdle before adoption of a single suppressor into service (it all took place while still in trials to complete and comfortably exceed the 220rd Full auto test). I think Coldblue could help you here. I am buying one in January I've done all kinds of research and my brother got a chance to meet a couple SEALs at Great Lakes Naval Base and to see the sound suppressors and talk to the SEAL's about them. He asked if they had any problems with it (NO was the answer). He asked them if they ever put any abusive use on the cans- - The SEAL he was talking to said he was in California with his personal weapon earlier that week (the M4 he was holding) and he put his whole ammo load (480 rds) through his M4A1 equipped with M4 QD in 5 minutes with no negative effects. [b]I really think it is that simple (build it completely out of inconel). No one else has done it yet so I haven't been able to test the theory.[/b] AS far as the SPECWAR series from SWR they are SS tubed Inconel baffled cans and I called Joe Giadinni of SWR and talked to him about them and he said that it sent chills down his spine when he heard users mention C-MAG dumps. He said that that was not a good idea with his suppressor (the higher the DB reduction the more efficient the can is and the longer it keeps hot gasses in the suppressor and barrel. This means the 35+DB suppressors are really not right for extensive full auto use as they create barrel and suppressor heat far quicker than a 30 DB design.) It sounded like sustained full auto fire was not a good idea for his suppressor or the suppressed weapons barrel. I would go so far as to say the Gemtech M4 96D is junk it will not tolerate even 200rds of full auto fire and thus it is in my book junk. Not a military friendly device. Rubber seal in a suppressor that gets up to 1200degrees or more? There are two ways to skin a cat you can go the BR TOUTE route and make a big reflex can that isn't really very efficient (24DB or so) and that will withstand heavy full auto use and is cheap to build. Or you can build a small high-perforemance (32DB MAX) sound suppressor of 100% inconel construction and it too will take sustained auto fire. The BR TOUTE is easier on the weapon but I think the M4 QD is the better choice for effective suppression.
Link Posted: 8/27/2003 8:55:46 AM EDT
By the way no one said inconel was an end-all. There are always new materials being discovered. I just heard of a strong but brittle polymer(may not be the right word but I can't remember what they were calling it) capable of holding its strength to 1200degrees Celsius that is being made in Russia. It sounded great but that was all I heard.
Link Posted: 8/27/2003 3:40:00 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Hoplite:
Originally Posted By Master_Blaster: Kalifornya law expressly prohibits C3 mfg's from selling their wares to civilians. Unless they opt to produce it somewhere else, it won't happen. Once again, Joe (Taxpayer) Blow gets screwed.[:(!] At least KAC, Gemtech, AWC, AAC, & Troy are accessible.
View Quote
isnt there some sort of federal commerce law that protects them from restricting their sales? This CA law sounds like a bunch of horseshit. Have any companies challenged it?
View Quote
BS/HS notwithstanding, it's the law in Kali. To my knowledge, no other state imposes such a restriction, & challenging it would involve going up against the Kali DOJ. Considering the financial conditions they're in right now, might be easier than at any other time, but it would still take some deep pockets, & probably be a loss anyway (Remember, we're talking about [u]Kalifornya[/u]). No profitable operation is going to throw capital at a losing ct battle, & there are probably plenty of other restrictive & illegal laws that remain w/o challenge until someone's willing to pony up. The courts are always open for biz. Some companies just move out of state. I heard rumor once that Ops (also in Kali) was supposed to be moving its operations to NV so it could capitalize on the civilian market, but it never happened. Jim Ryan, owner of TacOrd, said he moved operations to Idaho specifically because WA State started restricting C3 mfg & ownership (around 1987 -'89, I think). The benfits of the civilian market have to strongly outweigh the restriction-imposed losses to necessitate a move. I think around 39 states allow civilian's to own a suppressor, but how much profit does that actually represent? If the profit potential doesn't justify moving, then it probably isn't worth the legal wrangling.
Link Posted: 8/27/2003 7:07:11 PM EDT
I'll bet they would only sell a drop in the bucket a year to civilians compared to what they sell to the Military. It probably isn't worth the move and I doubt they could do it without losing valuable production time (I would guess they are pretty busy right now. What with the fact that we seem to be pissing off the whole islamic world and we need sound suppressors for our best to keep the heat on the terrorists.)
Link Posted: 8/27/2003 7:40:06 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/27/2003 8:32:23 PM EDT by POF-USA]
3rdtk (Jack or whomever you are), Your wrong! Patents run for 20 years now. This has been in affect for about 5 years now. Maybe you should do some research or just stay to testing ARMS products only. Best regards, Frank POF-USA GEEZ, here we go again, telling everyone, you know it all and have done it all.
Link Posted: 8/28/2003 3:15:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/28/2003 3:18:16 PM EDT by coldblue]
Originally Posted By Green0: "***If ...AND NO it was a full girdle before adoption of a single suppressor into service (it all took place while still in trials to complete and comfortably exceed the 220rd Full auto test). I think Coldblue could help you here.
View Quote
Green is very correct here. I remember all to well, because I had drafted and drawn all the suppressor illustrations for the Operator's manual true to the original model the did not have a girtle. And then, before any suppressors were released, the user inserted the requirement for the suppressor to survive repeated 210 round dumps. So the girtle was added to achieve same, and I had to update the entire manual. This same re-drafting drill was repeated when we later added the redundant retaining ring to the latch. The bottom line was, and remains, the government "winner" will be the design that best balances the user requirements for durability, sound suppression, weight, size, etc., ...from the lowest bidder.
Link Posted: 8/28/2003 3:30:06 PM EDT
I also want to add my very personal view on sound suppressors for AR's. Firstly, everyone should have one, or at least try one before rejecting the idea. I say this because I find myself shooting so much better when the weapon report is so reduced, especially handguns. I have also had success in training poor shooters who did much better learning fundamentals when I was able to mitigate muzzle blast and noise. I "discovered" this a long time ago with a suppressed MP5 in a very dark and confined place. Secondly, as long as most of us would probably only fire 5.56mm supersonic velocity ammo, that breaks the sound barrior as it leaves the end of the suppressor and creates a "crack" at the sound volume level of a .22 short for anyone to hear, what's the value of a few dB?... Especially if your very dB effiecient suppressor compromises other characteristics such as size, durability, etc.
Link Posted: 8/28/2003 4:05:32 PM EDT
Originally Posted By coldblue: Especially if your very dB effiecient suppressor compromises other characteristics such as size, durability, etc.
View Quote
I'll second that! Durability(reliability) is way more important than the dB's. Somewhat similiar to a 1911 that's been fitted for maximim accuracy but doesn't quite go back into battery when you need it most.
Link Posted: 8/28/2003 10:36:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/28/2003 10:43:26 PM EDT by Green0]
"Somewhat similiar to a 1911 that's been fitted for maximim accuracy but doesn't quite go back into battery when you need it most." I hate to change the way this post is going but.... THAT IS A FALICY MANUFACTURERS OF INACURATE WEAPONS WANT YOU TO BELIEVE. There is nothing NOTHING unreliable about a properly match fitted 1911. talk to Marine Force Recon, Les Baer, Ed Brown, Wilson... anyone who knows 1911's or who uses quality 1911's. I've had SA 1911's that jam and rattle to beat heck and guns that operate with .0004in tolerances and NEVER JAM. [b]A 1911 is in some ways like a combination of a Indy Car and a tour bus.[/b] A. You have to build it properly to realize it's true potential. B. It isn't finicky when properly built and will run for hundreds of thousands of rounds with routine gunsmith maintenance every 25,000-50,000rds. What sets 1911's apart from the rest is that when properly built they can attain accuracy unobtainable by most other handguns (don't believe me? Try to make a Glock shoot .75in at 50yds in a machine rest- and 1911's will be running long after many handguns wear out. I am currently looking into buying an HK USP TAC and was just surprised to see HK bragging about getting 20,000rds out of a pistol. I was startled a bit by this as it seems to hint that 20,000 is a heck of a run. My gunsmith has 275,000rds though one of his first custom 1911's something people who brag about 20K should take a look at.
Link Posted: 8/28/2003 10:51:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/28/2003 10:55:44 PM EDT by Green0]
Oh and by the way I wouldn't be surprised if in SOPMOD II the Crane suppressor's low price trumps the KAC's durability or sound reduction. a little like Canadian military acceptance of BR TUOTE suppressors when operators preffer and asked for KAC M4 QD's. I think the military would be happier with more widespread use of the SOPMOD Kit by virtue of lowering unit cost. The BR Tuote is a very durable design but it is not all that quiet there is a tradeoff (exotic alloys and weight for durability and high efficiency both or normal steel and compromising efficiency for durability at lighter weight and lower cost.) [b]It will be interesting to see what happens[/b] Not trying to say that is a stupid idea.... a BR TUOTE priced can on every weapon will nearly eliminate military induced hearing loss. Something that is totally rampant today. What's the mission: covert use? or Safety?
Link Posted: 8/29/2003 1:32:10 AM EDT
Green)- For the sake of accuracy (no pun intended....) The Pistol, Caliber .45 MEU (SOC), is not a "match pistol". The only "match" part in it was a drop in Bar-Sto bbl.(It has been described as "Near Match") In fact, the MEU(SOC) was the only mil pistol built without an accuracy standard, opting for the reliability standard instead (CWO5 Ken Davis, OIC of the PWS). In any event, the MEU(SOC)- as we now know it- will eventually be a thing of the past. The tests for the commercial variant replacement are on going, but way past schedule. In the interim, the Det has purchased a quantity of Kimber Interim CQB pistols- a modified Series 1 Classic Custom. Certainly not a match pistol, but a very reliable one. Just FYI...
Link Posted: 8/29/2003 4:40:52 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/29/2003 5:00:10 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Green0: "Somewhat similiar to a 1911 that's been fitted for maximim accuracy but doesn't quite go back into battery when you need it most." I hate to change the way this post is going but.... THAT IS A FALICY MANUFACTURERS OF INACURATE WEAPONS WANT YOU TO BELIEVE. There is nothing NOTHING unreliable about a properly match fitted 1911. talk to Marine Force Recon, Les Baer, Ed Brown, Wilson... anyone who knows 1911's or who uses quality 1911's. I've had SA 1911's that jam and rattle to beat heck and guns that operate with .0004in tolerances and NEVER JAM. [b]A 1911 is in some ways like a combination of a Indy Car and a tour bus.[/b] A. You have to build it properly to realize it's true potential. B. It isn't finicky when properly built and will run for hundreds of thousands of rounds with routine gunsmith maintenance every 25,000-50,000rds. What sets 1911's apart from the rest is that when properly built they can attain accuracy unobtainable by most other handguns (don't believe me? Try to make a Glock shoot .75in at 50yds in a machine rest- and 1911's will be running long after many handguns wear out. I am currently looking into buying an HK USP TAC and was just surprised to see HK bragging about getting 20,000rds out of a pistol. I was startled a bit by this as it seems to hint that 20,000 is a heck of a run. My gunsmith has 275,000rds though one of his first custom 1911's something people who brag about 20K should take a look at.
View Quote
I have a USP Tac with the KAC USP45T. The durability issue of the USP is something I've thought about - I have about 5k rounds through the unit and the frame rails are starting to show some deformation. Coldblue, do you know if the booster in the USP45T will allow a 1911 to cycle with no other mods?
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top