Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 1/15/2006 6:17:59 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/15/2006 6:26:43 PM EDT by CYBIN]
This is my AR.



It is a 16 inch HBAR postban. I’ve been wanting a flashider for a while now and I Think this is it. I want to send it off to reprofile and shorten the barrel. I want OAL to be 16 inches so I think I’m going to end up with a barrel that is an odd length. Something like 13 inches, but I’m wondering if that is too long because all the KX3s I see are on really short guns. The 14.5 all seem to have phantoms or vortexs.

I’m also wondering if I’m going to have of get some work done to the gas port because of the shorter barrel. So what do you guys think?

ETA: KX3 is 3.28" OAL. 16 - 3.28 = 12.72. that sounds pretty short to me. ThAT sounds pretty kick ass to me, and all without SBRing the gun.
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 6:28:29 PM EDT
The reason you see that device on short guns is because that is what it was designed for. Any FH on a 14.5"+ gun is just fine--not at all an issue for the operator. However, on a shorter barrel, the blast and concussion is much greater, specifically in an indoor, CQB evironment. In addition, the krink style brake is heavy. No big deal on a 10.5" barrel, but the further you move it out, the more balance is affected. Add a VFG, and a light, and...well you get the idea. The krink is great for it's intended purpose. Nothing is better at getting blast away from the shooter (that doesn't require a tax stamp). The downside is weight.

I don't think it is a big deal, but you should know the tradeoff. And, if you have any questions, you should contact John. He is a man of integrity, and wants to help the end user. That's why he has such a large group backing him. Make the call. FWIW, I have a krink for my SBR. I don't forsee a lot of use, though, as the Gemtech Halo is soimpressive...

damian@adcofirearms.com
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 6:49:30 PM EDT
Oh cool you're from adco. That is who I planned on sending it to. What do you think? 12.72inches by my calculations, but that is not taking into consideration the part of the barrel that is sheathed by the KX3. I'm not worried about weight because I'll have you guys machine the barrel lightweight profile under the handgaurds.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 7:59:45 AM EDT
Well I think it is a bitchin' idea, but first things first. I need some tools to get the barrel off. All I have now is a vice, I need everything else. I was thinking about asking Grant Timberlake or ADCO to put together a small armorers kit for me.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 8:28:45 AM EDT
Anyone have a puicture of a lightweigt or super lightweight with a krink mounted? Does it look funny with the big FH on the end?
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 10:45:09 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/16/2006 11:22:24 AM EDT by Va_Dinger]
Personally, I think after a (5.56mm) barrel gets past 12.5" the advantages of the Krink go away very quickly. It then just becomes an ornament. Blast and noise are really not a problem with barrels past 12.5", so why add the weight? I read posts from guys complaining about the Krink being "Heavy" all the time. Oddly enough none of these guys seem to actually own one or have experience with the blast and noise level of a standard A2 FS equipped 10.5"-12.5" weapon. The Krink makes a huge difference, and it's certainly worth the minuscule amount of weight it adds. If this tiny amount of weight bothers you, it's time to hit the gym.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 12:20:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/16/2006 12:22:00 PM EDT by watersniper]

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:
The Krink makes a huge difference, and it's certainly worth the minuscule amount of weight it adds. If this tiny amount of weight bothers you, it's time to hit the gym.



+12.5!!!

Yea anyways bigbore (Steve @ ADCO) and I shot his 10.5" without a FS of any kind. OUCH. Even with hearing protection, it was not fun. It cleared my sinuses real quick. I guess it's great therapy for a head cold. We put the Krink back on and WOW what a world of difference! Adding that weight to the end of your barrel may or may not affect your POI or accuracy. It makes sense that it might affect your barrel harmonics though. I put my Krink on my 16" as that's what's legal for me to do-for now. I didn't notice any sound/weight/accuracy/POI difference. It did look phunky though! When the ATF sends me a little piece of paper I paid for long ago, I'll more appropriately drop that Krink on an 11.5" upper I have planned. Check ADCO for Krinks too!?
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 1:11:05 PM EDT
Yea man a 16 with a Krink on the muzzle would be too long, I thought about that too but then its about 19 inches, and the blast factor would be a m00t point.I remember having a 14.5 with an AK brake and man was that thing loud. Untill I save up enough for a project Leonidas, this will do quite nice i think.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 1:58:36 PM EDT
the .5" for the threads dont count so add that to the short length you have.


also i think the krink on anything longer than 11.5 is a waste.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 5:25:15 PM EDT
In all honesty you will end up looking like someone just looking for a reason to blow $100+ on something you don't need. In fact, it will be the price of the muzzle break plus the cost to do all that work to your barrel and it's all for no reason other than to give yourself a reason to have the newest and coolest break on the block.

Link Posted: 1/16/2006 5:34:13 PM EDT
The Krink is wasted on barrels longer than 11.5", IMO. I have had one since the first prototypes were released, and as was stated above, they're the cat's ass on a 11.5" or shorter. They may actually make a 7.5" tolerable. If you have an SBR, there's nothing better.

The only thing I wish for (JN? are you listening?) would be a Bi-Lock mountable Krink so I can switch from quiet to quieter without breaking out a wrench. That's probably not practical, though...the Bi-Lock would never tolerate the volume of shooting I do without locking up solid. My M4-96D is about unremovable after about 400 rounds.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 5:59:43 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/16/2006 6:57:26 PM EDT by dubb-1]
VA, If I didn't know you any better, I'd say you just called me a sissy!

Now, about that PRO...can you say, "hostage"?

Seriously, the only reason I mention weight is because I have received some complaints about weight after the krink was permanently attached. Krinks are cool. Noveske is one of the good guys. And the device works as advertised. It is just much more beneficial on SBRs, just as Dinger so eloquently stated.

damian@adcofirearms.com
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 6:47:34 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 8:32:40 PM EDT
"specifically in an indoor, CQB evironment. "

That isn't going to do shit for you indoors. The noise will come right back off a wall.

Link Posted: 1/17/2006 4:41:25 AM EDT

Originally Posted By dubb-1:
VA, If I didn't know you any better, I'd say you just called me a sissy!



Watch out, next thing he'll wanna know is if you could take a "full power shot" from him
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 5:07:24 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/17/2006 11:32:40 AM EDT by Va_Dinger]

Originally Posted By dubb-1:
VA, If I didn't know you any better, I'd say you just called me a sissy!

Now, about that PRO...can you say, "hostage"?

Seriously, the only reason I mention weight is because I have received some complaints about weight after the krink was permanently attached. Krinks are cool. Noveske is one of the good guys. And the device works as advertised. It is just much more beneficial on SBRs, just as Dinger so eloquently stated.

damian@adcofirearms.com





Although it might look like it, that was NOT intended for you. You only mentioned the weight, and that is certainly something to point out. My statement was aimed entirely towards the "Heavy" comments in the previous Krink threads. Some guys go on and on about it like it weights twenty pounds. I would be willing to bet 99.9% of them have never been within twenty miles of a Krink.

Please don't hold my Pro hostage. I'm bouncing off the walls in anticipation already.

Damian, every body knows your one of the good guys.
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 9:11:57 AM EDT
Wes, what lenght of gas system is on that 12.5?
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 9:17:04 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 11:31:36 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 11:36:49 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 11:51:39 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:
and it's certainly worth the minuscule amount of weight it adds.



Minuscule


Dingers favorite word!


Just so everyone knows miniscule in this application is 4.9 oz (minus the weight of an A2).

I have the original Krink it adds 6.5 oz.

Ya, it's heavy, but worth it for an SBR, IMO.

I don't like the idea of perminately attaching anything, but Wes's rifle looks sweet.
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 12:12:52 PM EDT
I have one on an 11.5" barrel and although there is benefit in the form of blast reduction, I think the added weight is something that needs to be considered. VaDinger knows me and I'd be surprised if he thought I was a wimp. The extra weight is obviously not taxing, but it does affect the handling of the weapon.
I have also noticed that I'm getting more blast back in the face through the CH area. Yes I do have a gas buster on it.

For me, it's marginally worth it. For the guy standing next to me, he probably appreciates it.

YMMV.



Bomber
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 12:49:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:
Personally, I think after a (5.56mm) barrel gets past 12.5" the advantages of the Krink go away very quickly. It then just becomes an ornament. Blast and noise are really not a problem with barrels past 12.5", so why add the weight? I read posts from guys complaining about the Krink being "Heavy" all the time. Oddly enough none of these guys seem to actually own one or have experience with the blast and noise level of a standard A2 FS equipped 10.5"-12.5" weapon. The Krink makes a huge difference, and it's certainly worth the minuscule amount of weight it adds. If this tiny amount of weight bothers you, it's time to hit the gym.



I think people are complaining that it has an effect on the BALANCE of the weapon not the total weight. A front heavy 8 pound rifle is much harder to use and hold one handed during reloads than a well balanced 10 pound weapon. The redesigned KX3 is lighter than its predecesor and many people are talking about the heavier unit when they complain of weight as well. Onece you reac a certain weight and length real suppressors start to look more attractive for the size/weight/benefit ratio. I have fired 10" M16s and 12" ACC556 weapons and the shooter, outdoors, does not suffer, when wearing hearing protection, any more than an M4 barreled shooter suffers. If you had to shoot under an overhead enclosure or without hearing protection I can see a benefit but I dont think this is why most AR15.com members buy them.
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 12:56:44 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Randall_Rausch:

Originally Posted By MSTN:
STRANGE - AT ONLY 12.5", IT'S ONE OF THE TWO MOST ACCURATE AR'S I OWN. IT DID FIVE INTO 0.38" AT 100 YARDS.

WES GRANT
M.S.T.N.



Wes-


Does not suprise me at all.

Take two barrels of the same profile/diameter...
The shorter one is always going to be stiffer.
Stiffer barrels are more accurate.



Me either. My most accurate AR is a Colt 1:7 11.5" heavy. It is noticeably more accurate than my Colt M4.
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 6:16:33 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 10:29:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By CYBIN:
Anyone have a picture of a lightweigt or super lightweight with a krink mounted? Does it look funny with the big FH on the end?


No photos yet but I have a KFH mounted on my Colt SP-1 carbine's 16" pencilweight barrel. Can't tell much difference in the balance but it does look kinda strange. Just ordered a Bushy H-BAR 11.5" barrel for an SBR project so the KFH will be going on that,soon.
Clint
Link Posted: 1/18/2006 12:54:11 AM EDT
Thanks for the pic Randall. Would you be able to do something simular to mine? IM me.
Link Posted: 1/18/2006 6:10:04 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Randall_Rausch:
I finally dug up a picture of the KFH permenant attach job I did a couple weeks ago.
,With the Krink's cap and baffle removed this barrel is 16 1/8" long.
Here is a 13.75" barrel with a YHM rifle-length forend and permenant Krink:

www.ar15barrels.com/gfx/1375krink.jpg



Is that a smart thing to do? Is there a benefit to removing the parts? Would removing the parts alter the way the Break works in any way that would cause it to be considered something other than it was designed for- you know where I'm going, right? I know the ATF approved these as is, I'm just thinking it would be silly to mess with one.

Also, don't you ruin it by removing the parts that make it work or am I just not understanding what you did to it?
Link Posted: 1/18/2006 6:16:04 AM EDT

Originally Posted By JosephR:

Originally Posted By Randall_Rausch:
I finally dug up a picture of the KFH permenant attach job I did a couple weeks ago.
,With the Krink's cap and baffle removed this barrel is 16 1/8" long.
Here is a 13.75" barrel with a YHM rifle-length forend and permenant Krink:

www.ar15barrels.com/gfx/1375krink.jpg



Is that a smart thing to do? Is there a benefit to removing the parts? Would removing the parts alter the way the Break works in any way that would cause it to be considered something other than it was designed for- you know where I'm going, right? I know the ATF approved these as is, I'm just thinking it would be silly to mess with one.

Also, don't you ruin it by removing the parts that make it work or am I just not understanding what you did to it?



As these are removable, the barrel's OAL must be determined with them removed... if the barrel is 16+ with them installed, but under 16 with them removed, it is a SBR.

Also, the ATF does not *approve* anything...
Link Posted: 1/18/2006 6:16:46 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/18/2006 6:39:21 AM EDT

I removed the parts for measurement purposes only, not for actual use.
If the ATF were to check your barrel length, they are going to remove any parts that extend the barrel length that are not permanently attached. The cap and baffle come off with no tools. That's why I did my measurements without them.

Of course they get re-installed for actual use.




Hard to believe this simple concept aludes some folks.

Bomber
Link Posted: 1/18/2006 3:51:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By thebomber:

I removed the parts for measurement purposes only, not for actual use.
If the ATF were to check your barrel length, they are going to remove any parts that extend the barrel length that are not permanently attached. The cap and baffle come off with no tools. That's why I did my measurements without them.

Of course they get re-installed for actual use.




Hard to believe this simple concept aludes some folks.

Bomber



Ha! that's pretty funny. Sorry Joseph no offense.

Hey Randall, since the KX3 come apart differntly, would you cut the barrel shorter in order to get the OAL to 16"?
Link Posted: 1/18/2006 3:58:06 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/18/2006 4:20:48 PM EDT
Hey guys- I'm tempted to be a real dick right now and tell you to f- off. You didn't understand what I was asking.

From what I've read about these, they WERE submitted to the ATF for evaluation and it was determined they were NOT sound moderators in anyway.

I'm looking at the sound moderator angle here, get it?

So, my question was still valid- I was asking if they could by some wierd chance be considered sound moderators if internals were removed and that is all.

I can fucking read and did see that the OAL was 16.125" long with the parts removed. I wasn't being an IDIOT when asking about the internals. I was not asking about a potential SBR.

get it?

I think Gunzilla's original reply confused you guys a little. He thought I was asking about OAL when I wasn't. Simple mistake and you didn't need to compound it.
Link Posted: 1/18/2006 4:29:11 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/18/2006 4:31:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By CYBIN:

Originally Posted By thebomber:

I removed the parts for measurement purposes only, not for actual use.
If the ATF were to check your barrel length, they are going to remove any parts that extend the barrel length that are not permanently attached. The cap and baffle come off with no tools. That's why I did my measurements without them.

Of course they get re-installed for actual use.




Hard to believe this simple concept aludes some folks.

Bomber



Ha! that's pretty funny. Sorry Joseph no offense.

Hey Randall, since the KX3 come apart differntly, would you cut the barrel shorter in order to get the OAL to 16"?



Link Posted: 1/18/2006 5:08:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JosephR:
Hey guys- I'm tempted to be a real dick right now and tell you to f- off. You didn't understand what I was asking.

From what I've read about these, they WERE submitted to the ATF for evaluation and it was determined they were NOT sound moderators in anyway.

I'm looking at the sound moderator angle here, get it?

So, my question was still valid- I was asking if they could by some wierd chance be considered sound moderators if internals were removed and that is all.

I can fucking read and did see that the OAL was 16.125" long with the parts removed. I wasn't being an IDIOT when asking about the internals. I was not asking about a potential SBR.

get it?

I think Gunzilla's original reply confused you guys a little. He thought I was asking about OAL when I wasn't. Simple mistake and you didn't need to compound it.




Chill out....this is AR15.com after all . Seriously, if you didn't quote Randall like you did, there would not have been any confusion. Randall was just explaining the correct process for determining the minimum barrel length when using a permanently attached KFH. You have to consider the cap thickness.


To answer your question, there is no value to removing the cone other than to clean it. From the ATF pov, they are more worried about the baffle than the bare housing.

Sorry to upset you.

Bomber
Link Posted: 1/18/2006 5:17:36 PM EDT
It's all good guys. I just got a little testy when I got so many posts regarding my comment so quickly.

I didn't realize Randall was actually removing those to test the length. He seemed to me to mention it as something he just happened to find out while he was fiddling. Didn't realize you were all pretty set in the OAL idea while I was wandering off into a different legal area.

I've heard like you all have I'm sure that if the ATF wanted to be dicks, they could measure the sound of any type of unknown device however they see fit and if it's quieter with it on by even 1dB than with it off that it could be considered a supressor. I was just wondering if in fact they could be jerks with this...

Link Posted: 1/18/2006 10:08:38 PM EDT
Hey you guys know of the best place to get the tools I need to take off the barrel?
Link Posted: 1/18/2006 10:22:12 PM EDT

Originally Posted By thebomber:

Originally Posted By JosephR:
Hey guys- I'm tempted to be a real dick right now and tell you to f- off. You didn't understand what I was asking.

From what I've read about these, they WERE submitted to the ATF for evaluation and it was determined they were NOT sound moderators in anyway.

I'm looking at the sound moderator angle here, get it?

So, my question was still valid- I was asking if they could by some wierd chance be considered sound moderators if internals were removed and that is all.

I can fucking read and did see that the OAL was 16.125" long with the parts removed. I wasn't being an IDIOT when asking about the internals. I was not asking about a potential SBR.

get it?

I think Gunzilla's original reply confused you guys a little. He thought I was asking about OAL when I wasn't. Simple mistake and you didn't need to compound it.




Chill out....this is AR15.com after all . Seriously, if you didn't quote Randall like you did, there would not have been any confusion. Randall was just explaining the correct process for determining the minimum barrel length when using a permanently attached KFH. You have to consider the cap thickness.


To answer your question, there is no value to removing the cone other than to clean it. From the ATF pov, they are more worried about the baffle than the bare housing.

Sorry to upset you.

Bomber



This may have been the case, but with the news of a *replacement* baffle stack that goes in place of the regular end cap and cone, current thinking is that the tube is a suppressor housing...
Link Posted: 1/18/2006 10:39:22 PM EDT
Current thinking by who? Did the ATF issue a finding or something?
Link Posted: 1/18/2006 11:13:58 PM EDT
It would make sense then that the krink is serialized.
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 4:33:57 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/19/2006 4:36:27 AM EDT by thebomber]

Current thinking by who? Did the ATF issue a finding or something?


AFAIK, they only issue opinions. Evidently in the opinion of the Technical branch, the KFH as currently configured
is NOT a sound suppressor.


It would make sense then that the krink is serialized.



They are? I didn't notice a s/n on mine. Where are they?


This may have been the case, but with the news of a *replacement* baffle stack that goes in place of the regular end cap and cone, current thinking is that the tube is a suppressor housing...



It will be interesting to see how that plays out. I would think that just because you have a current KFH and some one markets a "baffle stack" that doesn't automatically make your KFH a suppressor. My reasoniong is that "fake suppressors" are legal.


Bomber



Link Posted: 1/19/2006 5:17:03 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/19/2006 5:34:30 AM EDT by bigbore]
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 9:51:29 AM EDT
Hey Bomber, the KX3 is serialized. I read somewhere that it is for QC purposes

www.noveskerifleworks.com/cgi-bin/cart2/detail.cgi?item_id=kx3
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 10:18:10 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/19/2006 11:06:07 AM EDT by JosephR]
Look at Page 14 of the AR picture thread and you'll see a dude who mounted one on his 16" carbine "Coyote and Varmint" rifle.

ETA: f*ck it. Here it is:





Link Posted: 1/19/2006 10:20:52 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DevL:

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:
Personally, I think after a (5.56mm) barrel gets past 12.5" the advantages of the Krink go away very quickly. It then just becomes an ornament. Blast and noise are really not a problem with barrels past 12.5", so why add the weight? I read posts from guys complaining about the Krink being "Heavy" all the time. Oddly enough none of these guys seem to actually own one or have experience with the blast and noise level of a standard A2 FS equipped 10.5"-12.5" weapon. The Krink makes a huge difference, and it's certainly worth the minuscule amount of weight it adds. If this tiny amount of weight bothers you, it's time to hit the gym.



I think people are complaining that it has an effect on the BALANCE of the weapon not the total weight. A front heavy 8 pound rifle is much harder to use and hold one handed during reloads than a well balanced 10 pound weapon. The redesigned KX3 is lighter than its predecesor and many people are talking about the heavier unit when they complain of weight as well. Onece you reac a certain weight and length real suppressors start to look more attractive for the size/weight/benefit ratio. I have fired 10" M16s and 12" ACC556 weapons and the shooter, outdoors, does not suffer, when wearing hearing protection, any more than an M4 barreled shooter suffers. If you had to shoot under an overhead enclosure or without hearing protection I can see a benefit but I dont think this is why most AR15.com members buy them.



Lets just say it's hard to be an expert on anything that you have not been within a hundred miles of, EXCEPT for you. Do you even know how to do a correct mag change? It does not sound like from your post. It seems to me that 99.9% of the guys complaining about it being "Heavy" are the ARFCOM "Experts" who have never even seen one, let alone carried one all day. Most of this is a joke. I've carried mine for 8 hours two days in a row with zero issues. I never noticed it being heavy or as you love to post over and over "Unbalanced". This crap reminds me of the children’s book "The Princess & The Pea”. If I taped a Tick Tack to your rifle would you be able to tell? If so, my advise would be to head straight to the gym. I’m not even going to get into your NFA suppressor advantages comments. We have been over it way too many times and it’s a waste of time.

Well at the very least it gives a few guys something to talk about, too bad most of it is pure disinformation.
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 10:31:08 AM EDT

Originally Posted By CYBIN:
Hey Bomber, the KX3 is serialized. I read somewhere that it is for QC purposes

www.noveskerifleworks.com/cgi-bin/cart2/detail.cgi?item_id=kx3



Thanks that explains why I haven't seen one on mine as I have the 1.2oz heavier KFH .


Bomber
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 12:05:48 PM EDT
Better hit the weights bro. J/k.

In response to Dinger's post I would just like to say if I was to build another AR, lightweight would be right behind reliability in importance. It make me mad everytime I go shooting with my friend and his SP1 feels better to me than my blinged out Bushy, but I don't carry around my gun all day so it is really a non issue with me.
Top Top