Armory Sponsor
Posted: 3/9/2016 6:58:22 PM EDT
|
I like the fact that I don't have to buy special mounts for all my rifles and sound testing looks really good.
Still, I don't see many reviews about them. Does anyone have one and want to chime in? |
|
Most of the A2's are made toward the middle of the size range for diameter ~.8615-.863 diameter. Our proprietary muzzle devices are .8625-.863" Diameter. There really isn't too much difference in fit in most cases. The grooves on some of the A2's are made with metric tooling and don't fit our locking gates. The A2's made with 1/8" grooving tools fit properly. Because it is not a screw into compression device, we need the fit of the gate to be relatively close to the groove, so we couldn't make the gate .115" wide to accommodate the metric grooved A2's. Current gates are about .1225" wide and fit grooves from .123-.128" properly and that keeps the mount safe, because .128" is about as big as an A2 groove will be.
The Optimus A2 mount will accommodate more of the A2's because it can accept a metric A2 groove. The M4SD II comes with an interfacing hammer comp mount and it is our opinion that most end users will want our mounts anyway because they provide performance enhancing features and sacrificial baffles for errosive wear mitigation. |
|
The M4SD II looks sweet, and those that have them like them. But there's a lot of advantages to be gained by going to a can with a proprietary mount. The Recce 5 is $163 cheaper at Silencer Shop, and that comes with a mount. For $163 you can buy two more mounts.
If you use it on 3 rifles, you break even and you have a lighter, shorter can which should theoretically be quieter because the baffle stack and bore can be held tighter due to the taper mount. Unless you're putting this one can on 6+ rifles, you may want to consider a proprietary mounting system. |
|
I went with the M4SD over the M4SD II. Since I wear plugs when shooting 5.56, the extra 3 dB of performance on the II doesn't matter to me, so I took the cost savings. I have dedicated mounts/cans for the rifles I shoot the most - but at $6.99 for a shim/overtravel stop set, I'm just going to prep all my other ARs in case I take them out on a whim. |
|
Quoted:
I went with the M4SD over the M4SD II. Since I wear plugs when shooting 5.56, the extra 3 dB of performance on the II doesn't matter to me, so I took the cost savings. I have dedicated mounts/cans for the rifles I shoot the most - but at $6.99 for a shim/overtravel stop set, I'm just going to prep all my other ARs in case I take them out on a whim. That's kind of what I'm thinking. Shim sets are cheap. I have a number of rifles and don't want to have to get an expensive new mount for every one. I like the looks of this system better than the Halo, and it looks to be a solid performer. |
|
I kept waffling on a similar can, the M4SD-K, before I finally ordered it. I nearly ordered the Recce 5 but I had other factors at play: I already had a Spartan 3 in the pipeline, I wanted something a little bit shorter, and it would be nice to have something that mounts on A2 spec devices. I *really* like the taper mount on paper though, and somewhat wish I had ordered the Recce 5. Hell, I may end up ordering one anyway. These cans, and their mounting systems, all have pros and cons depending on the use.
If you're considering the M4SD-II, I'd take a serious look at the Recce 5 for the reasons already mentioned. |
|
Quoted:
yeah i am contemplating a M4SDII purchase myself, and i too was wondering why there wasn't more love for the can. its super sexy looking and i dig Griffins M4SD Flash Comp It's a dedicated can. The market is a multi-function market. It's funny because when I want a 5.56mm can, I grab an M4SD II or K, but I also understand that the $200 NFA tax and cost of suppressors prevents most consumers from using non multi-function cans. The inconel to 17-4 baffling is pretty similar in wear resistance, and 17-4 is about twice as strong as 718 inconel. The 17-4 is harder, and the inconel is softer but has wear resistant properties in the material. So we saw good wear resistance with both materials. We've now begun to heat treat the 17-4 baffles to raise their rockwell hardness 9-10 points and push material strength to about triple that of 718 inconel in the industry used condition which is as stamped from cold rolled sheet. The 17-4 we have the most experience with that has similar wear properties to 25RC 718 inconel stampings is 36RC in the as machined condition. The heat treated 17-4 baffles at ~45RC will outperform inconel 718 in strength and wear resistance. Our patented baffles also have flow enhancing features that reduce the amount of gas flowing through the primary aperture and that reduces errosive wear also by reducing the amount of particulate passing through the minor ID aperture. |
|
Quoted:
It's a dedicated can. The market is a multi-function market. It's funny because when I want a 5.56mm can, I grab an M4SD II or K, but I also understand that the $200 NFA tax and cost of suppressors prevents most consumers from using non multi-function cans. The inconel to 17-4 baffling is pretty similar in wear resistance, and 17-4 is about twice as strong as 718 inconel. The 17-4 is harder, and the inconel is softer but has wear resistant properties in the material. So we saw good wear resistance with both materials. We've now begun to heat treat the 17-4 baffles to raise their rockwell hardness 9-10 points and push material strength to about triple that of 718 inconel in the industry used condition which is as stamped from cold rolled sheet. The 17-4 we have the most experience with that has similar wear properties to 25RC 718 inconel stampings is 36RC in the as machined condition. The heat treated 17-4 baffles at ~45RC will outperform inconel 718 in strength and wear resistance. Our patented baffles also have flow enhancing features that reduce the amount of gas flowing through the primary aperture and that reduces errosive wear also by reducing the amount of particulate passing through the minor ID aperture. Quoted:
Quoted:
yeah i am contemplating a M4SDII purchase myself, and i too was wondering why there wasn't more love for the can. its super sexy looking and i dig Griffins M4SD Flash Comp It's a dedicated can. The market is a multi-function market. It's funny because when I want a 5.56mm can, I grab an M4SD II or K, but I also understand that the $200 NFA tax and cost of suppressors prevents most consumers from using non multi-function cans. The inconel to 17-4 baffling is pretty similar in wear resistance, and 17-4 is about twice as strong as 718 inconel. The 17-4 is harder, and the inconel is softer but has wear resistant properties in the material. So we saw good wear resistance with both materials. We've now begun to heat treat the 17-4 baffles to raise their rockwell hardness 9-10 points and push material strength to about triple that of 718 inconel in the industry used condition which is as stamped from cold rolled sheet. The 17-4 we have the most experience with that has similar wear properties to 25RC 718 inconel stampings is 36RC in the as machined condition. The heat treated 17-4 baffles at ~45RC will outperform inconel 718 in strength and wear resistance. Our patented baffles also have flow enhancing features that reduce the amount of gas flowing through the primary aperture and that reduces errosive wear also by reducing the amount of particulate passing through the minor ID aperture. I am looking for a dedicated 556 can. I have a couple "multi-function" ones already. Im building an SBR to host the 556 can and it will probably never come off it |
|
Quoted:
I am looking for a dedicated 556 can. I have a couple "multi-function" ones already. Im building an SBR to host the 556 can and it will probably never come off it Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
yeah i am contemplating a M4SDII purchase myself, and i too was wondering why there wasn't more love for the can. its super sexy looking and i dig Griffins M4SD Flash Comp It's a dedicated can. The market is a multi-function market. It's funny because when I want a 5.56mm can, I grab an M4SD II or K, but I also understand that the $200 NFA tax and cost of suppressors prevents most consumers from using non multi-function cans. The inconel to 17-4 baffling is pretty similar in wear resistance, and 17-4 is about twice as strong as 718 inconel. The 17-4 is harder, and the inconel is softer but has wear resistant properties in the material. So we saw good wear resistance with both materials. We've now begun to heat treat the 17-4 baffles to raise their rockwell hardness 9-10 points and push material strength to about triple that of 718 inconel in the industry used condition which is as stamped from cold rolled sheet. The 17-4 we have the most experience with that has similar wear properties to 25RC 718 inconel stampings is 36RC in the as machined condition. The heat treated 17-4 baffles at ~45RC will outperform inconel 718 in strength and wear resistance. Our patented baffles also have flow enhancing features that reduce the amount of gas flowing through the primary aperture and that reduces errosive wear also by reducing the amount of particulate passing through the minor ID aperture. I am looking for a dedicated 556 can. I have a couple "multi-function" ones already. Im building an SBR to host the 556 can and it will probably never come off it If you're keeping it on an SBR full time, check out the Spartan 3, too. Quite a bit lighter. 
|
Armory Sponsor