Armory Sponsor
Posted: 2/2/2010 7:09:49 PM EDT
|
I have put this off for long enough. I am going to get the ball rolling on a .22LR suppressor within this next week and have narrowed it down to these two models. It will be used on my Ruger Mark 2 with a 4.5" Pac-Lite barrel, and Tactical Solutions dedicated .22LR upper on my AR.
I like both of them because they are light, offer good suppression, and are short enough so that my Mark 2 will fit in my 10.5" holster when attached. I want the best, so the element seems like the obvious choice. It seems to be much more durable than the Prodigy, but I don't plan to do any full-auto or .22 mag shooting. Plus, I only go through about 2000 rounds per year on average. The main thing that stops me from choosing this one are the Silencer Research meter numbers for it on the 10/22. Compared to the P22, they seem to indicate it works much better on a pistol than a rifle. Since my AR has a 16" barrel it doesn't seem optimum. The Prodigy has very consistent metering across the board in the Silencer Research tests. It is not the best, but is always in the top 5 of the 33 tested. This is very important since it will be used on both a pistol and rifle. The fact that it is Aluminum concerns me, but since I only do casual shooting and nothing too abusive, I don't see a problem. Sorry for the long-winded post, but I want to make the right choice. It seems that the Prodigy would best fit my needs, but I just wanted some outside opinions. Thanks, Justin |
|
Personally, I'd go for the Element. It's user serviceable & you can use the uber-effective "dip" on the entire can (tube, endcaps, & all 7 baffles) without worry.
The Prodigy is an excellent can in its own right, but you'll be scrubbing the monocore w/ a toothbrush & mineral spirits alot longer - .22 cans get DIRTY, yo. The Silencerco Sparrow is another excellent monocore can, but is also aluminum like the prodigy so it'll be a bit more tedious to maintain. My next .22 suppressor will be either the Prodigy or Sparrow; I haven't decided which yet. That one will primarily be for rifle use anyways. |
|
Quoted:
Personally, I'd go for the Element. It's user serviceable & you can use the uber-effective "dip" on the entire can (tube, endcaps, & all 7 baffles) without worry. The Prodigy is an excellent can in its own right, but you'll be scrubbing the monocore w/ a toothbrush & mineral spirits alot longer - .22 cans get DIRTY, yo. The Silencerco Sparrow is another excellent monocore can, but is also aluminum like the prodigy so it'll be a bit more tedious to maintain. My next .22 suppressor will be either the Prodigy or Sparrow; I haven't decided which yet. That one will primarily be for rifle use anyways. I am planning on using one of these blast cabinets for cleaning http://www.tractorsupply.com/tools/sandblasting-tools-accessories/black-bull-abrasive-blast-cabinet-3951103. I have no experience yet, but from the videos I've seen online, they seem to be a quick and easy way to clean silencers. Just out of curiosity, why are you not considering the Element? Thanks |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Just curious why not the Silencerco sparrow? It is just a tad longer than I am looking for, and the Silencer Research tests seem to indicate less than stellar performance on a pistol. Less than steller would be more how the Mite performed. The 22Sparrow is right in line with the Pilot or Outback II, which are still considered great cans. Also, I think this is one of those situations where the meter doesn't capture what you really hear. I've shot my 22Sparrow next to the Element and the difference is so small that you have to shoot them side by side to tell a difference, and even then it's just a tone difference. This was on a P22. I'd venture to guess on a slightly longer barrel like the Ruger that it would become even more favorable. Also, the extra length is worth it because it's put to good use in the form of O-ring seals. When you shoot a thousand rounds through it, the cap unscrews like it's brand new (provided you didn't ape it down) because the threads are all sealed off from gasses. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Just curious why not the Silencerco sparrow? It is just a tad longer than I am looking for, and the Silencer Research tests seem to indicate less than stellar performance on a pistol. Less than steller would be more how the Mite performed. The 22Sparrow is right in line with the Pilot or Outback II, which are still considered great cans. Also, I think this is one of those situations where the meter doesn't capture what you really hear. I've shot my 22Sparrow next to the Element and the difference is so small that you have to shoot them side by side to tell a difference, and even then it's just a tone difference. This was on a P22. I'd venture to guess on a slightly longer barrel like the Ruger that it would become even more favorable. Also, the extra length is worth it because it's put to good use in the form of O-ring seals. When you shoot a thousand rounds through it, the cap unscrews like it's brand new (provided you didn't ape it down) because the threads are all sealed off from gasses. That doesn't sound quite right. Our more recent 2009 checkmate core metered approximately 1 DB quieter than the sparrow on the P22, meaning the checkmate and sparrow should be 4 and 5 DBs louder than the prodigy. Those sound levels should be noticeable. On rifles yeah they will all sound about the same, but that's because they will then be within about 1-2DB of each other which is a smaller difference. Our can might be the quieter of those three on rifles, although some people have argued that's less important, which is sensible, since at that point the sound level of rifles is already lower and more sound reduction is thus less important than with the louder pistol platforms. Ive heard someone in the industry talk about a phenomenon where he felt he heard a louder downrange sound that came from the AAC K baffle cans that to his ear seemed to make them sound more like louder silencers (Sparrow/Spectre) to his human ear than metered results would imply. Maybe there is something to that theory of his. Your opinion would seem to support that- though that phenomenon may or may not apply to the Prodigy. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Just curious why not the Silencerco sparrow? It is just a tad longer than I am looking for, and the Silencer Research tests seem to indicate less than stellar performance on a pistol. Less than steller would be more how the Mite performed. The 22Sparrow is right in line with the Pilot or Outback II, which are still considered great cans. Also, I think this is one of those situations where the meter doesn't capture what you really hear. I've shot my 22Sparrow next to the Element and the difference is so small that you have to shoot them side by side to tell a difference, and even then it's just a tone difference. This was on a P22. I'd venture to guess on a slightly longer barrel like the Ruger that it would become even more favorable. Also, the extra length is worth it because it's put to good use in the form of O-ring seals. When you shoot a thousand rounds through it, the cap unscrews like it's brand new (provided you didn't ape it down) because the threads are all sealed off from gasses. That doesn't sound quite right. Our more recent 2009 checkmate core metered approximately 1 DB quieter than the sparrow on the P22, meaning the checkmate and sparrow should be 4 and 5 DBs louder than the prodigy. Those sound levels should be noticeable. On rifles yeah they will all sound about the same, but that's because they will then be within about 1-2DB of each other which is a smaller difference. Our can might be the quieter of those three on rifles, although some people have argued that's less important, which is sensible, since at that point the sound level of rifles is already lower and more sound reduction is thus less important than with the louder pistol platforms. Ive heard someone in the industry talk about a phenomenon where he felt he heard a louder downrange sound that came from the AAC K baffle cans that to his ear seemed to make them sound more like louder silencers (Sparrow/Spectre) to his human ear than metered results would imply. Maybe there is something to that theory of his. Your opinion would seem to support that- though that phenomenon may or may not apply to the Prodigy. Yeah, I think the measurement of silencers has a lot of room to grow. The current test method doesn't do a good job of capturing what the human ear actually hears. This has been known for some time by people in the industry, but they use it because it's convenient, somewhat repeatable, and gets you close to what people hear. I also think there is also a lot to that "projected sound" effect you mentioned. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Personally, I'd go for the Element. It's user serviceable & you can use the uber-effective "dip" on the entire can (tube, endcaps, & all 7 baffles) without worry. The Prodigy is an excellent can in its own right, but you'll be scrubbing the monocore w/ a toothbrush & mineral spirits alot longer - .22 cans get DIRTY, yo. The Silencerco Sparrow is another excellent monocore can, but is also aluminum like the prodigy so it'll be a bit more tedious to maintain. My next .22 suppressor will be either the Prodigy or Sparrow; I haven't decided which yet. That one will primarily be for rifle use anyways. I am planning on using one of these blast cabinets for cleaning http://www.tractorsupply.com/tools/sandblasting-tools-accessories/black-bull-abrasive-blast-cabinet-3951103. I have no experience yet, but from the videos I've seen online, they seem to be a quick and easy way to clean silencers. Just out of curiosity, why are you not considering the Element? Thanks I've already got the Element (sorry I shoulda said) - & it's one badass .22 can. It sounds exactly the same as a friend's Spectre, if not a tad bit better. & it weighs ALOT less. No need for a "blast cabinet" - soak the parts in a solution of 50% hydrogen peroxide & 50% white distilled vinegar for a little while. The crud literally wpies right off, no prob. |
Armory Sponsor