Armory Sponsor
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - AAC Pilot internals pictures.... (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 6/5/2006 8:08:26 PM EDT
|
Its not mine but a friend of mine got his Pilot opened for cleaning. The Pilot is a very nice product as you can see from the pictures. At the request of Site Staff, I am allowed to post a few baffle pictures. Here goes:     
|
I am not in the suppressor business, but from pure looks the TAC is longer and the elongated hole on the TAC is much shorter in the Pilot. They are very similar, but not the same. |
|
"so, out of curiousity, what makes that K-baffle different than the TacInc K-baffle?" I think it's obvious the tac inc is a more crude product. The cross port looks like an end mill or a drill brought down in a single operation whereas the AAC looks like two operations-- one for the cross port on top and one for the side port below. The 1/8" or whatever port is another operation as well [but I guess only on one baffle so maybe that is like a pressure relief for short barrels?], and the tac baffle seems to have [at least from your pics a seperate cut in the otherside. The tac baffles appear longer so apparently less of them are filling a can. So apparently it can be cleaned. Well. Now this must be some sort of a challenge to religion on .22 cans. |
|
Forgive me but.... AAC Pilot....$225 oops sorry now $425 retail Goberment tax stamp.....$200 Wait time 2 months, or 6 months if you processed 1 year ago... Take it all apart to see what its made of, and ahem "clean it"....Priceless Wtf would want to do that to a non serviceable can for? |
First off, I didn't take it apart, it's a friends can. Second, he made a "non-servicable can" servicable. I am not really sure if you know this or not but 22LR cans fill up and get loud if you don't clean them. |
First off, I didnt once refer to "you" in my post, Second, good for him. My little sister could service the space shuttle with a monkey wrench, doesnt mean its going to fly. And yes I am aware that rimfire cans require cleaning, also aware there are easier and less costly methods than turning my NFA items into 3.5oz pieces of scrap metal. Which is what I see, untill your friend provides proof of proper reassembly...Even then Im forced to ask "Why"? |
What 22 can do you have? |
|
A lot of complex machining involved in producing that. That isn't any simple fender washer and spacer can. The differences between the two baffles may not be obvious to someone that hasn't machined metal, but to someone that has, there is a large difference in the cost of producing the parts. Doug |
|
My link was deleted with no explanation. This is a techincal forum and I will repost these pictures and anyone who wants to see them will be able to. David posted a picture of the internals of a Pilot from an X ray anyway. At the request of Site Staff, I am allowed to post a few baffle pictures. Here goes:
|
|
I believe that the Pilot pictured is several years old. There have been a few changes since then. We have a new .22 fast-attach silencer coming out very soon. The Prodigy incorporates only three components, and can easily be disassembled for cleaning without ruining it. It debuted at the 2006 Silencertests.com shoot. Robert can post pictures, if he likes. |
Fast or right? We would like to get it right the first time. We are doing a lot of testing and R&D to make it as perfect as possible. I would hate to rush it and give you something else to bitch about. 
|
|
Quoted: My link was deleted with no explanation. This is a techincal forum and I will repost these pictures and anyone who wants to see them will be able to. David posted a picture of the internals of a Pilot from an X ray anyway. deleted by mod I deleted the links, and sent you an email about it. I don't think that pictures of internals of suppressors that do not come apart should be posted. They are intellectual property owned by someone. If the suppressor comes apart (designed to) then it is fair game. The Xray : That was posed on Silencer Tests a long time ago, and was allowed by the owner of that IP. Now, since Kevin has posted and not complaining about it, I will leave it up. Please do not post internal pictures with out the explicit permission of the owner. |
I never got an email from you. In the future, send it to [email protected] Intellectual property should be patented, K baffles are not intellectual property and when I know the owner of the K baffle design, I will ask his permission before posting any more pictures. 
|
I must be psychic. |
Ideally 'trade secrets' are best limited to manufacturing processes that can be kept secret. Baffle spacing and tuning matters and AAC spends time picking those variables -- that is why each year there are small improvements that add up. In the AAC centerfire pistol cans, each and every baffle is a different size -- that costs a lot more than stocking just one baffle part, but it is done because it is better. The can costs more in the end, and you can save a lot of money if you want to come pretty close to it. AAC knows the extra details they put into the machining costs a lot more, but do it anyway, even though no one would see it (unless it was forced open). I disagree that there is no intellectual property in the Pilot because there are certain angles, ports, thicknesses, etc which were carefully developed with lots of R&D. After all, that is why they are quieter than some larger cans that also are based on the K-baffles. The more recent Pilots (there have been two revisions since this one) are shorter and I am told quieter, although I have not tested the original ones. But it is those small changes which make all of the difference and that tuning takes a lot of effort. |
Is this any worse than the actions of everyone who mailed a competitor's suppressor to (suppressor designer) Robert Silvers for “testing” ? |
Are you saying I am never eligable to design a can, because I once tested cans? What could I do? Wait 10 years in between to make you feel better? |
| Eligable without getting grief. I just got bored with testing, and decided to design something. Did my experience with all of those cans give me knowledge? Sure. Did I premeditate it as a way to get cans to copy? Certainly not. In any case, I bought a large number of those cans and honestly was doing it as a free service to share the results with everyone. Since it cost me money, and I gave away what I learned -- yes, it bothers me when people claim I had an ulterior motive. |
Great, I just got a Pilot that is gonna be made obsolete by the Prodigy. You guys have been saying all along that a sealed can is best, and now you are going to market one that disassembles. |
That was not a fair question, because no one knew I would become a suppressor designer. And I was testing them in good faith and without ulterior motive. |
Well the Prodigy needs more clearence inside in order to come apart so it is hard to make it as quiet as a sealed can, and it will cost more. So the Pilot is not being replaced. |
That is total BS. "Intellectual Property", that sounds like some PC crap Bill Clinton would have said back in the day. If I paid for it I can cut it apart and take pictures of it and even duplicate it in my machine shop, since after all it isn't patented. |
| It is legal what 1928A1 did, but at the same time, there is IP in the Pilot. It is protected as a trade secret, but not by patent. The only question is if a website wants to help people expose trade secrets to the public and foreign nationals. It is not illegal to do so, but is considered inconsiderate. It is a tough call and both sides have some valid arguments to make. I am not sure what side I am on, but in the past I have been emailed by foreign nationals to send them internal photos of cans and I always said no. |
The Pilot is not being replaced. It will remain on the market. It is a totally different idea concept. There are some things that the Pilot will do better and some applications for which Prodigy is better suited. I still do not like silencers that come apart which incorporate many components. The Prodigy is radical and features several "new" concepts. We will see how it goes over in the long run. Most people seem to really dig, so far. If you feel slighted in a year from now then simply take advantage of our upgrade policy. |
|
"Are you saying I am never eligable to design a can, because I once tested cans? What could I do? Wait 10 years in between to make you feel better?" I think any experience a knowledgeable person has with any marketed product in the suppresor field puts them in possession of a good share of intellectul property not their own. By this model you are probably in possession of more than possibly anyone in the US. I understand that that shouldn't mean you can't produce a product; I'm just saying that it does deffinitely pose moral and ethical questions about how the rest of the companies in this field are supposed to operate. Obviously when one person gets a good idea in the current age of CNC and CAD the idea could feasibly become everyone's property in less than one business day. I don't believe that patents are the way to go here because a patent simply makes it easier by providing people with a drawing without purchasing the product. Then they can probably copy without fear of a lawsuit given the expense of inter-state lawsuits and the size of the small companies involved. Another obvious point is that a person could make a copy- make an "improvement" and not violate the patent. So really it's a catch-22. When a patent doesn't protect what does one do? I deffinitely think that internals are intellectual property. I would like to see that property safe-guarded but I allready discovered that my local C2 was marketing an exact copy of an AWC suppressor (a design that was not meant to come apart that he had dissassembled and run copies of- subcontracted through a local machine shop.) Obviously these things happen. It's unfortunate IMO. His achievement is CHEAP - he did not think and did not build [and IMO does not understand or care] but has a product. |
|
Is the pilot the suppressor that has changable tubes? I remember a thread that showed a carbon fiber and metal tube that used the same internals. Is the serial # on the end cap or something? Wouldnt the extra tube would be considered a silencer "part" just like a baffle? |
|
Apparently not. The suppressor you are thinking of is an AAC Prodigy. I think that this could easilly be done just using a common tubing cut and faced to a cirtain length. Are they going to outlaw that tubing size? I doubt it. You could walk around most shops and find half a dozen items that could be suppressor parts. That just represents the rediculous nature of those regs. One user has a suppressor that uses replaceable 20 ounce bottles as "WIPES" so I guess that establishes the precident that all 20oz bottles are now suppressor parts. OH SHIT! SOMEONE TELL COKE AND PEPSI TO CEASE BOTTLE PRODUCTION IMMEDIATELY! |
|
My buddy who's a manufacturer summed it up best to me: If anyone wanted the details bad enough to "copy" they'd spend the $500 to buy a can on a dealer transfer and crack it open. Posting pictures doesn't give any actualy measurements, they'd spend the money to break one open. IP is a BS cop out answer. |
|
"If anyone wanted the details bad enough to "copy" they'd spend the $500 to buy a can on a dealer transfer and crack it open. Posting pictures doesn't give any actualy measurements, they'd spend the money to break one open. IP is a BS cop out answer." Someone who knows what they are looking at could probably glean a feature that cost someone R&D money to work up. IP isn't a BS answer. Theft of intellectual property is more prevalent in the firearms industry than elsewhere, because companies are smaller within the industry than within others, and less likely to successfully pursue legal action against each other. Like they said, there are reasons why the cans are sealed. |
Did you, Robert? You just got bored and decided to stop testing? How long ago? The truth will set you free, Robert.
|
|
IAN man really you should relax and forget about it. I could totally understand getting sick of testing other peoples products. He did make his own product and he didn't do poorly at it. I believe he should be patenting that. It's new enough to suppressors here in the US that the concept of an effective single piece baffle-stack should recieve a patent. |
I am relaxed, Robert should just be a little more honest. Wasn't Robert still doing testing in July of last year? FYI - You have not seen pictures of a suppressor made by Robert Silvers, the Prodigy is made by AAC. |
Dude...chill out. At first, it was kind of cute that you were so enamored with Robert. Now, it is just really frickin' weird. |
At this point, you have no idea what you are talking about. It is not any of your business, but (just to prove that you have an agenda against and are only circulating rumors...) AAC did not make the Prodigy silencers. |
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - AAC Pilot internals pictures.... (Page 1 of 2)
Armory Sponsor