To put some perspective on this, the Q Full Nelson averaged 138.3 db on the same rifle, same ammunition and within 30 minutes of the Vox testing.  I will continue to test the Vox every chance I get including accuracy testing with and without the wipe.  Testing on .308 and 5.56 will be soon.

EA wanted to give you the versatility by including a wipe, whether you want to use it is personal preference.  Wipe replacement can be done by any qualified gun smith.  I also offer wipe replacement for any wiped can.  For the do-it-yourselfers, the wipe is high temp, fabric reinforced silicon with a durometer of 70A, McMaster #3635K17.

That is a valid concern.  Preliminary testing showed no adverse effect at 100m.  Will definitely get it in the hands of some long range guys to really put it to the test.

Elevated temperature strength of H1150 in Table 8

They show on their website a chart that implies that 17-4 in H1150 has ~70KSI yield at 1000F.  The AK steel document shows it at 108KSI yield for the H1150 tested at 1000F.  The H1150 condition is actually about 20% weaker than H900 that companies in this industry actually use.   This seems to imply that the advertised  200% strength advantage of C300 at 1000F, is actually a 34% strength advantage, which in H900 (a better comparison), might only be a real 11% strength advantage at 1000F, and the C-300 appears to be dramatically dropping beyond that temperature, where 17-4 has a flatter curve.  The C300 also has a 6% greater susceptibility to corrosion at room temperature, no doubt increasing at elevated temperatures, but it would be tough to find the test data to substantiate that because information on C-300 is relatively unavailable- probably because very few engineers and industry applications saw its price to value relationship as providing something desirable. It's a NASA alloy- and NASA is the government.

The C300 material is 5.4 times the price of 17-4, and most likely machines at about 30% the speed of 17-4, so the silencer components made from this material should really be causing the price to be higher, more like a titanium price point which is important to note is an artificially weighted price point in this industry (when companies sell Titanium they artificially reduce those prices because this market can't sustain actually realistic titanium prices).  The street price of the unit doesn't reflect that greater cost or time of manufacture which is odd.  The company is not specifying the tube material either which is less than fully informative.  From an economic standpoint, I don't think very many engineers would call this 11% at 1000F (and declining from there) strength advantage and 6% corrosion advantage worth the squeeze.  Those numbers will mean the company will make 70% less product at a higher manufacturing cost, AKA they will not be able to be competitive.

When you frame that in the context of Silencer Co acknowledged to have been losing money selling their silencers in rather massive volume despite relatively economic materials and manufacturing methods, it becomes obvious how important it is for silencer companies to do intelligent things with product design.  Kudos to them for doing something different, however different isn't always better, just because it's different.  We select the most durable and economical materials to ensure that we can back up the customer with quality customer service, product options, availability, and most importantly financially solvent solutions to guarantee the company will be in the market in the future when the consumer requires that support that he depends on.

Titanium, 7075AL, and 17-4 stainless are not even cheap materials by industrial measures however they allow for good price to value relationship without losing out on material quality and application requirements.  The industry is very competitive and even relatively responsible and established companies at times struggle to make thier financial goals despite monumental efforts.  This is the way the tax code structures the free market.    Operating in the red as a company is not something that is sustainable and consumers dont benefit from it.  Its always been at the forefront of consumers minds, the question " will they be here tomorrow? "  and we personally have mercilessly fought to ensure that we will be there and I can confidently say that we will be here ten years from now.  We've proven that by being here for 12 years already.   Anyway its a free market, they are welcome to compete, hopefully they dont end up like Blackhawk and hopefully they can be more honest in their marketing as companies that have not don't really get much respect in the long run by anyone industry or consumer relative.

That's a really nice way of trashing the new kid on the block.

I can appreciate using a different material just to use a different material. Otherwise this can literally uses an already existing mounting interface, so it's like a lighter, cheaper Sandman S with a wipe capability (the Germans used centerfire wipes in World War II because silencer technology wasn't good in their country at that point.   Suppressors see temperatures up to 1200 pretty easily, so it's possible the material properties might even overlap current use materials.

I didn't trash anyone.  It wasn't exactly cool to understate reality by 40% at 1000F for a cherry picked non industry typical, overaged H1150 17-4 either.   That curve would look a lot better at 170KSI sloping to 130KSI at 1000F with H900- obviously a good reason to use H1150 and under-rate it by 40%.   I haven't said anything that misrepresents C-300 properties.

With suppressors the top of the yield chart isn't what engineers are looking for- it's the numbers at around 900-1200F that matter for silencers in this class, because that's more typical of a use ceiling.  900F is pretty normal use for a steel silencer.  Those numbers are going to determine wall thickness required to do the job, and thus weight.

They don't tell you what the can is made of- they simply say the baffles are C-300, and the rear mount and front cap is 17-4.  The tube could be 304.  It's a strange way of doing specifications.   They told customers what half the can is made of.    I don't really care- I was trying to help people think about the products, and to understand the realities of the marketplace.  If I was in the market for a Dead Air can I would probably buy it from Dead Air.

It's tubeless. And thank you for shitting in my thread.

To put this back on track, do you know if they will sell a mountless model for those of us who already have Keymo adapters or ASR mounts?  Or will the direct thread version work like an Omega with an insert that screws out so a Keymo adapter can be used?

The latter. If you do have an extra KeyMo, ASR or YHM Omega adapter, you are good to go.

Awesome. We'll have to talk come July.

Several Griffin cans and mounts share many design cues and features with KAC cans, and KAC was around long before Griffin so you can do the math on that.

There's also the thing where Griffin threatened to sue some guy who called them out about that...

I’ve invited the guys from EA to join the conversation. I’m sure they will be happy to answer questions.

What Griffin can takes a KAC mount?  None.  Which Griffin Baffle is identical to a KAC baffle?  None.  It's just a bad argument.

Doug Olson was involved in the design project that created the can that became the NT4 from KAC.  Way back- maybe 2006 or so, I talked to him via e-mail at length regarding why everything was done the way it was done.  After understanding the design project and why things happened I realized the only positive merit of the design for someone working from a blank slate was the locking gate.  It allowed muzzle devices that took field abuse to be useful with a gate style suppressor.   That's a non patented concept that has been used by SRT on the Atlas mount Typhoon, and AAC  on the M9SD which I believe was compatible with the KAC M9QD barrel mount, and Brugger and Thomet on one of their Rotex V 5.56mm cans.  Our M4SD uses a locking gate and I changed the engineering design pretty heavily to one that worked with an A2 style mount and required only one hand to operate, and that actually locked positively.  The KAC rotary circlip uses friction to resist motion.  They added a roll pin with the NT4 to offer more friction, but it's still friction biased.

I appreciated the conversation with Doug Olson, who I feel was probably the second most influential silencer design person in the relatively short history of firearm silencers- second to Maxim, but it showed me that a lot of problems and challenges can be created by trying to solve the issues of an existing system rather than creating a system that solves the problems of the first system.    Doug might even agree with that if you asked him in that context.

People could also stop trying to hate the M4SD can and just buy one and realize its shit hot and fucking murders that product category.

Hey I appreciate it- really I do.  I think you are describing a mount very similar to the one we do have for the Optimus suppressor.  It might work.   We did have a period of time where we were getting into manufacturing just about everything here, but that's pretty much concluded.  Huntertown obviously helps you understand the level of support a company gives you when they no longer exist.  Rumor has it through a dealer with Energetic product, Energetic owns a job shop.  So they have somewhere to go if they don't like suppressors.  We aren't a job shop, and neither is Silencer Co as far as I know.  I don't have the right passion to run widgets and I feel like that situation is probably reversed when the job shop runs silencers also.