Armory Sponsor
Posted: 2/27/2015 4:22:33 AM EDT
| I'm still contemplating my first suppressor buy and I like the price of the AACs but I'm also building a clone so I only want to use issued items. Which, if any, AAC suppressors are current military issue? |
" />
|
Quoted:
One could argue the M4 2000 is quite possibly the most famous or infamous military suppressor because of weapon below! http://<a href=http://i1315.photobucket.com/albums/t597/RoberaH/image.jpg1_zpsa9rofdfx.jpg</a>" /> Wasn't an M4-2000. OP- to answer your question- Evolution 9 Evolution 40 Tirant 9-S Tirant 45-S MP7-SD2 M4-2000 416-SD 762-SDN-6 SCAR-SD SCAR-H SD MG-SD 249-SD 240-SD MK-13 SD Titan QD "Current Issue" is a loaded question. All of these are floating around among units. If the question what is in production as of today that regularly ships to mil units? Titan QD and MK13-SD. |
|
Quoted:
The military uses many different suppressors. From AAC, KAC, Gemtec, Ops Inc, Surfire. The suppressors are purchased at every level and are purchased for a wide range of reason specified by different units. Sidebar: SiCO has zero .mil contracts, correct? |
|
Quoted:
It looks to have the steps of M4 2000 but could also be 416-SD.  , Albeit someone within AAC said in was the former.Quoted:
It looks to have the steps of M4 2000 but could also be 416-SD. , Albeit someone within AAC said in was the former.Pretty good authority that it was 416-SD.
Actually for the Mark Owen Seal rifle AAC was supposed to provide limited run of M4-2k's marked as 416-SD's. Not sure if this ever went down or not. Quoted:
Quoted:
The military uses many different suppressors. From AAC, KAC, Gemtec, Ops Inc, Surfire. The suppressors are purchased at every level and are purchased for a wide range of reason specified by different units. Sidebar: SiCO has zero .mil contracts, correct? Yes, but to be fair there haven't really been any rifle silencer solicitations (other than CSASS- which is more of a system) since they really started hitting it hard with the Saker/ Specwars. They've assembled a pretty damn good team for when the next call out for new cans comes. But with the draw downs who knows when that will be. |
|
Quoted:
Pretty good authority that it was 416-SD.
Actually for the Mark Owen Seal rifle AAC was supposed to provide limited run of M4-2k's marked as 416-SD's. Not sure if this ever went down or not. Yes, but to be fair there haven't really been any rifle silencer solicitations (other than CSASS- which is more of a system) since they really started hitting it hard with the Saker/ Specwars. They've assembled a pretty damn good team for when the next call out for new cans comes. But with the draw downs who knows when that will be. Quoted:
Quoted:
It looks to have the steps of M4 2000 but could also be 416-SD. , Albeit someone within AAC said in was the former.Pretty good authority that it was 416-SD.
Actually for the Mark Owen Seal rifle AAC was supposed to provide limited run of M4-2k's marked as 416-SD's. Not sure if this ever went down or not. Quoted:
Quoted:
The military uses many different suppressors. From AAC, KAC, Gemtec, Ops Inc, Surfire. The suppressors are purchased at every level and are purchased for a wide range of reason specified by different units. Sidebar: SiCO has zero .mil contracts, correct? Yes, but to be fair there haven't really been any rifle silencer solicitations (other than CSASS- which is more of a system) since they really started hitting it hard with the Saker/ Specwars. They've assembled a pretty damn good team for when the next call out for new cans comes. But with the draw downs who knows when that will be. Good info, thanks. Aren't there company level purchases of non-NSN gear all the time? Suppressors may be on a different level than nylon gear or holsters but that's still an option for HSLD units, right? |
|
Quoted:
Aren't there company level purchases of non-NSN gear all the time? Suppressors may be on a different level than nylon gear or holsters but that's still an option for HSLD units, right? Correct. NSN means it's in the national stock number system. HSLD units have discretionary funds and .gov credit cards they can use for unit purchases. |
|
Quoted:
One could argue the M4 2000 is quite possibly the most famous or infamous military suppressor because of weapon below! http://<a href=http://i1315.photobucket.com/albums/t597/RoberaH/image.jpg1_zpsa9rofdfx.jpg</a>" /> Roflmao! What the hell!? |
|
Quoted:
Roflmao! What the hell!? Quoted:
Quoted:
One could argue the M4 2000 is quite possibly the most famous or infamous military suppressor because of weapon below! http://<a href=http://i1315.photobucket.com/albums/t597/RoberaH/image.jpg1_zpsa9rofdfx.jpg</a>" /> Roflmao! What the hell!? What exactly are you asking? |
|
I dont know about anything small arms-related when it comes to military procurement, but I can tell you from experience that NSWG (and sometimes even regular units) get whatever they want if a legitimate need is expressed to a contractor (like me) and I can, in turn, validate and fulfill that need with a new product or procedure. Standardization requirements never stop big Navy or big Army from procuring things from my company as necessary. However, we arent going to sell thousands of a particular item to someone with a government credit card. That requires too many people to agree on it, and some contracting officer Ive never met to go along with it. Its always one thing here, two things here, one more over there.... Again, I dont sell weapons or weapon parts, but I would assume weapons procurement is very similar to what Ive seen in the past with .mil logistics. |
|
Quoted:
Roflmao! What the hell!? Quoted:
Quoted:
One could argue the M4 2000 is quite possibly the most famous or infamous military suppressor because of weapon below! http://<a href=http://i1315.photobucket.com/albums/t597/RoberaH/image.jpg1_zpsa9rofdfx.jpg</a>" /> Roflmao! What the hell!? IIRC it's a clone of the Osama gun. |
|
Quoted:
How does the military acquire suppressors? Do they have to go through the same hoops as the rest of us? Sorry if I'm derailing. Nope. As far as large purchases there is a multi year IDIQ contract put in place. They use a Form5 to get transferred. Tax free. Kinda like a form 3. |
|
Quoted:
What exactly are you asking? Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
One could argue the M4 2000 is quite possibly the most famous or infamous military suppressor because of weapon below! http://<a href=http://i1315.photobucket.com/albums/t597/RoberaH/image.jpg1_zpsa9rofdfx.jpg</a>" /> Roflmao! What the hell!? What exactly are you asking? What photographer created that? Butler creek looking scope cover on suppressor muzzle? I bet that's a mess... |
|
Quoted:
What photographer created that? Butler creek looking scope cover on suppressor muzzle? I bet that's a mess... Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
One could argue the M4 2000 is quite possibly the most famous or infamous military suppressor because of weapon below! http://<a href=http://i1315.photobucket.com/albums/t597/RoberaH/image.jpg1_zpsa9rofdfx.jpg</a>" /> Roflmao! What the hell!? What exactly are you asking? What photographer created that? Butler creek looking scope cover on suppressor muzzle? I bet that's a mess... I believe I read that is supposed to be some sort of clamp-on window breaker, but I could be mistaken. |
|
P Quoted:
I believe I read that is supposed to be some sort of clamp-on window breaker, but I could be mistaken. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
One could argue the M4 2000 is quite possibly the most famous or infamous military suppressor because of weapon below! http://<a href=http://i1315.photobucket.com/albums/t597/RoberaH/image.jpg1_zpsa9rofdfx.jpg</a>" /> Roflmao! What the hell!? What exactly are you asking? What photographer created that? Butler creek looking scope cover on suppressor muzzle? I bet that's a mess... I believe I read that is supposed to be some sort of clamp-on window breaker, but I could be mistaken. Glass breaker/curtailment device (similar to pic below) on the actual 416 used to kill OBL!  </a>" />
Sorry if thread derailed. |
|
Quoted:
Good info, thanks. Aren't there company level purchases of non-NSN gear all the time? Suppressors may be on a different level than nylon gear or holsters but that's still an option for HSLD units, right? Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It looks to have the steps of M4 2000 but could also be 416-SD. , Albeit someone within AAC said in was the former.Pretty good authority that it was 416-SD.
Actually for the Mark Owen Seal rifle AAC was supposed to provide limited run of M4-2k's marked as 416-SD's. Not sure if this ever went down or not. Quoted:
Quoted:
The military uses many different suppressors. From AAC, KAC, Gemtec, Ops Inc, Surfire. The suppressors are purchased at every level and are purchased for a wide range of reason specified by different units. Sidebar: SiCO has zero .mil contracts, correct? Yes, but to be fair there haven't really been any rifle silencer solicitations (other than CSASS- which is more of a system) since they really started hitting it hard with the Saker/ Specwars. They've assembled a pretty damn good team for when the next call out for new cans comes. But with the draw downs who knows when that will be. Good info, thanks. Aren't there company level purchases of non-NSN gear all the time? Suppressors may be on a different level than nylon gear or holsters but that's still an option for HSLD units, right? If you watch SiCo's Intro video to the Saker 556k it states the k can was developed for the military and is now available for commercial sale, I doubt SiCo would make that up. |
|
Quoted:
One could argue the M4 2000 is quite possibly the most famous or infamous military suppressor because of weapon below! http://<a href=http://i1315.photobucket.com/albums/t597/RoberaH/image.jpg1_zpsa9rofdfx.jpg</a>" /> This pic is a little more authentic: 
And this is what a 416 SD looks like: 
|
|
Quoted:
At the time the 416-SD was made the roll mark. The M4-2K has had improvements since then though. Quoted:
Quoted:
what is the diff between the 416-SD and the M42K? At the time the 416-SD was made the roll mark. The M4-2K has had improvements since then though. Yep Mod08 M4-2000, 416-SD ACR-SD, RGP-SD and SCAR-SD were all the same can. |
|
Quoted:
If you watch SiCo's Intro video to the Saker 556k it states the k can was developed for the military and is now available for commercial sale, I doubt SiCo would make that up. just because it was "made for the military" doesn't mean that they ever had a contract to produce a definite (or indefinite) quantity.. think about the 9mm pistol trials, there were several companies who developed weapons to compete or modified existing weapons to compete, however only Beretta won the actual contract. I'm going to qualify this response by saying that I have no idea what items are currently in use (or have been purchased in the past). but I do know and understand military and government procurement. everything that is widespread across the departments of the government must be purchased through contracts. procurement requests and invitations to bid are all listed on www.fbo.gov. some contracts are qualifications based and just listed as open for the sake of appearing to be equal opportunity contracts, however, the performance or qualifications specifications effectively eliminate true competition. (i.e. the company that won the "no bid" contract for the healthcare.gov website - they were probably the only company that truly presented that they were qualified to meet all of the specification requirements, so where it was an "open bid" they were the only company really looked at for the contract because all others were shy on a qualification here or there) I am sure that there are other back door methods to procure weapons ammunition, and equipment, but that is not the way that 90% of government procurement is made. |
|
Quoted:
just because it was "made for the military" doesn't mean that they ever had a contract to produce a definite (or indefinite) quantity.. think about the 9mm pistol trials, there were several companies who developed weapons to compete or modified existing weapons to compete, however only Beretta won the actual contract. I'm going to qualify this response by saying that I have no idea what items are currently in use (or have been purchased in the past). but I do know and understand military and government procurement. everything that is widespread across the departments of the government must be purchased through contracts. procurement requests and invitations to bid are all listed on www.fbo.gov. some contracts are qualifications based and just listed as open for the sake of appearing to be equal opportunity contracts, however, the performance or qualifications specifications effectively eliminate true competition. (i.e. the company that won the "no bid" contract for the healthcare.gov website - they were probably the only company that truly presented that they were qualified to meet all of the specification requirements, so where it was an "open bid" they were the only company really looked at for the contract because all others were shy on a qualification here or there) I am sure that there are other back door methods to procure weapons ammunition, and equipment, but that is not the way that 90% of government procurement is made. Quoted:
Quoted:
If you watch SiCo's Intro video to the Saker 556k it states the k can was developed for the military and is now available for commercial sale, I doubt SiCo would make that up. just because it was "made for the military" doesn't mean that they ever had a contract to produce a definite (or indefinite) quantity.. think about the 9mm pistol trials, there were several companies who developed weapons to compete or modified existing weapons to compete, however only Beretta won the actual contract. I'm going to qualify this response by saying that I have no idea what items are currently in use (or have been purchased in the past). but I do know and understand military and government procurement. everything that is widespread across the departments of the government must be purchased through contracts. procurement requests and invitations to bid are all listed on www.fbo.gov. some contracts are qualifications based and just listed as open for the sake of appearing to be equal opportunity contracts, however, the performance or qualifications specifications effectively eliminate true competition. (i.e. the company that won the "no bid" contract for the healthcare.gov website - they were probably the only company that truly presented that they were qualified to meet all of the specification requirements, so where it was an "open bid" they were the only company really looked at for the contract because all others were shy on a qualification here or there) I am sure that there are other back door methods to procure weapons ammunition, and equipment, but that is not the way that 90% of government procurement is made. Correct. I can design a new spork and my intention can be for the military to give me a contract. I can then say I designed it for the military, even though they didn't ask for it. I'm not lying but it's not entirely a truthful statement now is it? |
|
Quoted:
If you watch SiCo's Intro video to the Saker 556k it states the k can was developed for the military and is now available for commercial sale, I doubt SiCo would make that up. They can say that, but why would the military want cans to be compatible with YHM and etc. mounts or if the endcap can be changed out or care if the flashhider makes a pinging sound. All that stuff just adds another level of unneeded complexity and nuisance things to have problems with. |
|
ikickhippies used referenced IDIQ contract.
That stands for Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity. It is a contract that just allows a company to bid on further solicitations. So, if the Navy wanted a hot new suppressor, only companies that had won the IDIQ suppressor contract would be able to compete for the solicitation. IDIQ contracts are really nothing more than a qualification to greatly limit the possible number of companies that are allowed to compete. it doesn't matter if you create a suppressor that will drop signature and report by 70db, if you arent already on the IDIQ contract then you can't compete. (however, you can sell your suppressor to one of the companies that IS on the IDIQ contract, which is done ALL THE TIME) another example of this is the ECWCS , notice that ALL of them say ADS and the contract number, but some of them are made by Propper or another company FOR ADS, so that ADS can fulfill their contract. there are companies that NEVER produce a single item, yet, they hold massive IDIQ or BOA contracts where they are nothing more than a broker providing access to the government contract.. |
Armory Sponsor