The Explorr mount (if you just consider the material relevant to the mount only vs Plan A L) is .47 ounces lighter.  So I guess that means we could technically make a lighter Plan A if we did it that way (explorr looking rear interface), the only issue would be that it wouldn't have the spanners for tightening it so people would have to carry a big ass wrench around to have that std HUB spanner functionality, and the part wouldn't look as nice.

I guess I was surprised by that answer from Solidworks, because the Plan A L is already pretty light.

There is some fairly major gripping utility afforded by the Plan A L though, so maybe that's worth the .47 ounce weight gain?

I thought about lightening the Recce 5 with that Plan A L geometry, but then you think also about killing the appearance of a Recce 5...    At that point maybe the Recce 5 should be tubeless too, if we are trying to make it lighter? But at what point is it no longer a Recce 5?   The question mark is indicative of the reality that when you ask yourself these questions, sometimes no clear answers present themselves.  

Giving the Explorr a mount that adds weight has similar implications.  

Decisions on this stuff are hard to make.

Even to lose weight is a durability reducer, because the weight is essentially a heat sink.  The mount geometry change would be a sweeping appearance change and probably would drop out the identity of the Recce cans.  That geometry is high on surface area, but light on weight.  I'm not sure it would reduce durability, but that identity crises thing might be bad.

The cans are solid- they outperform Sierra 5's just like we showed in the head to head testing video.  <Those were both shown with the only strings fired.  We didn't shoot twice to cherry pick anything for either can.

There is a second version HRT that is currently government only- not because we want to be dicks or anything like that, but because we haven't quite sold through the first run HRT's and releasing a revision would just be stupid.  The other version is an ounce and a half heavier, and it is very different. Like every baffle is different, it doesn't even have the same number of baffles, and it has a newer flash suppressor cap.  

It was only designed because the group that put the can through 10 cycles of 6 mags back to back full auto on the 11" 416, mentioned that they liked the can, and though the can hadn't failed, but they would prefer a little more durability, so we had the luxury of open manufacturing time and we did like 2 weeks of R&D non stop for them to develop an enhanced durability package involving some number of like 18 prototypes to get to the model we felt was the best of balanced properties.  They were also asking for 5% cyclic increase and mentioned they would like shorter length, (I'd like a unicorn that shits rainbow sherbet), and that cyclic increase and shortening while adhearing to a poorly communicated sound reduction specification (that we couldn't actually define completely due to poor lines of communication) was beyond the scope of what we could deliver in 2 weeks at the time also in part hindered by the fact that the sound requirements were being communicated second hand by a military distributor who wasn't really pinning down the details, so we ended the development with a can that caused 11% cyclic increase and performed with the original for sound, and better in flash while being more durable.  Two weeks was all we had to work with.  

A US military unit visited us from Germany and tested a couple cans, among them that can, and went other places and tested other cans, and selected our can (this developed one), so that evidences that in a competitive selection process it can win against other brands when the US Armed Forces is the customer doing the testing, in the current market of options, this year.

Wildcats up to about 90 grains of case powder capacity should be fine.  17-4 is incredibly strong- 2-3 times as strong as other common stainless alloys used in suppressors including inconel, so basically strength isn't a problem.  That's part of why people have run the Optimus Micro .22lr cans in the standard direct thread config on 10.5" 5.56mm ar's through carbine training courses without problems.

I've never heard of a high temperature application for a wildcat .22 cartridge (AKA there is no belt fed .22 wildcat) so the high temperature properties aren't as relevant for wildcat caliber capability as the lower temperature strength properties which are immensely high.