Posted: 11/19/2008 7:38:17 PM EDT
|
I'm ready to buy a can for my 5.56 rifles. Do yall have any suggestions? It seems like YHM Phantoms are the best value. What do yall think? I'd appreciate any help and info you can supply as to products and who has the best prices. Thanks.
Peace, Dragonfire52 
|
|
Quoted:
I like my YHM phantom. We put it up against the similar prices AAC cans... you really could not tell any difference at all in sound supression.... as is the case with most 5.56 cans. Falarak, Does the QD design work consistently and accurately? Is it easy to use? Peace, Dragonfire52
|
|
Quoted:
I like my YHM phantom. We put it up against the similar prices AAC cans... you really could not tell any difference at all in sound suppression.... as is the case with most 5.56 cans. But they have a really tight bore, so why buy one? I'd get a M4-1000 over a yhm 5.56 can. It has a .300 bore all the way through, is 4oz lighter, uses better materials, is better constructed, works just as well, and is only $60 more retail. Though many of us, including me, don't like standard size 5.56 cans because of the blowback issues. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I like my YHM phantom. We put it up against the similar prices AAC cans... you really could not tell any difference at all in sound supression.... as is the case with most 5.56 cans. Falarak, Does the QD design work consistently and accurately? Is it easy to use? Peace, Dragonfire52 I have YHM 556 also and I like it. The QD is very simple. I usually turn all the way tight and back up 2 notches; marked it for all the subsequent uses. Very consistent results. Accuracy is usually the same or better with the cans on. Provided that you have the can (YHM can in this case) in the same place (notch) every time. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I like my YHM phantom. We put it up against the similar prices AAC cans... you really could not tell any difference at all in sound suppression.... as is the case with most 5.56 cans. But they have a really tight bore, so why buy one? I'd get a M4-1000 over a yhm 5.56 can. It has a .300 bore all the way through, is 4oz lighter, uses better materials, is better constructed, works just as well, and is only $60 more retail. Though many of us, including me, don't like standard size 5.56 cans because of the blowback issues. Skillshot, Please explain "blowback issues" as I'm really new to suppressors. Peace, Dragonfire52
|
|
Quoted:
Thanks Mojo..............so you'd buy another YHM product? Peace, Dragonfire52 Definitely. I would buy YHM 30 cal (like Tboy suggested) and use for both 30 cal and 556. Really...All of the cans are good. It comes down to what's more important to you: db, price, consistency, accuracy, durability, QD or not QD, customer service,.... |
|
Quoted:
Skillshot, Please explain "blowback issues" as I'm really new to suppressors. Peace, Dragonfire52
After the suppressor fills with gas, it has to vent it. A semi auto action lets it vent back down the barrel and into the action during cycling. A low volume suppressor with a 6mm bore is going to contain higher pressure gas than a higher volume can and not only fill the action with lots of the dirty gasses of combustion, but also squirt those gasses through the gun's orifices into, say, your eye. AAC's SPR-M4 and OPS' 16th are high volume 5.56 suppressors that try to minimize this. A 308 can also minimizes it. Of course it will never be eliminated, but at least you eye won't hurt. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Thanks Mojo..............so you'd buy another YHM product? Peace, Dragonfire52 Definitely. I would buy YHM 30 cal (like Tboy suggested) and use for both 30 cal and 556. Really...All of the cans are good. It comes down to what's more important to you: db, price, consistency, accuracy, durability, QD or not QD, customer service,.... I'd skip the YHM. It metered badly and it is heavy. The AAC 762sd is way better and only $150 more. I'd get almost any 308 can (Gemtech, SRT, OPS, SWR) over the yhm. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Thanks Mojo..............so you'd buy another YHM product? Peace, Dragonfire52 Definitely. I would buy YHM 30 cal (like Tboy suggested) and use for both 30 cal and 556. Really...All of the cans are good. It comes down to what's more important to you: db, price, consistency, accuracy, durability, QD or not QD, customer service,.... I'd skip the YHM. It metered badly and it is heavy. The AAC 762sd is way better and only $150 more. I'd get almost any 308 can (Gemtech, SRT, OPS, SWR) over the yhm. Dealt with AAC before. Their customer service is the worst compared to all other can manuf. Therefore, if AAC is the best since sliced bread....Still, not going to buy it. |
|
Quoted: Be careful basing an entire purchase on 10 shots fired on a given day. I have seen stuff measure 5+ dB on different days, even 2-3 dB in just a few hours. Many of the shot strings have 6/7/8 dB difference just within the ten shots, and some can take 3/4/5 shots to clear all the FRP. Note that metering good on one gun/ammo combo does not translate to metering good on your gun/ammo. Just because a can meters loud on a given day, does not mean it is loud. So if possible hear it for yourself. The YHM is a good can, even though the dB numbers may not reflect it.Quoted: Quoted: Thanks Mojo..............so you'd buy another YHM product? Peace, Dragonfire52 Definitely. I would buy YHM 30 cal (like Tboy suggested) and use for both 30 cal and 556. Really...All of the cans are good. It comes down to what's more important to you: db, price, consistency, accuracy, durability, QD or not QD, customer service,.... I'd skip the YHM. It metered badly and it is heavy. The AAC 762sd is way better and only $150 more. I'd get almost any 308 can (Gemtech, SRT, OPS, SWR) over the yhm. |
|
So what are you saying, that the results you, Major Malf, and John got aren't trustworthy? And it was 30 rounds total, out of each can, all shot at the same time, and shot on 3 different guns. The results corroborate what AAC released a few months ago, too. That's as good as it gets.
5db is quite a bit, imo. But it's not just the sound reduction - the thing is heavy. I should know since I've had one of yours for over a year! I know most 308 cans are, but the 19.5oz of the sd is really attractive. |
|
Quoted:
So what are you saying, that the resuts you, Major Malf, and John got aren't trustworthy? They are trustworthy for that day. But if you look, you will see we got different results depending upon the firearm we used. Think of it this way. Take a Honda Civic across country and measure MPG. That is trustworthy. Then drive around NYC. That is trustworthy too, but will be much different. Then take it up Pikes Peak, again, that is trustworthy too, and will also be different. Quoted:
And it was 30 rounds total, out of each can, all shot at the same time, and shot on 3 different guns. No, it was 10 rounds per can/rifle to make the measurement. Quoted:
5db is quite a bit, imo. One can varied 4 dB just changing host rifles, several others varied 2+ dB. Quoted:
But it's not just the sound reduction - the thing is heavy. I should know since I've had one of yours for over a year! I know most 308 cans are, but the 19.5oz of the sd is really attractive. You have a good can, 762 cans are bigger and heavier. Technology is changing fast, there are more an more Ti options and I expect more to be announced at SHOT. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Thanks Mojo..............so you'd buy another YHM product? Peace, Dragonfire52 Definitely. I would buy YHM 30 cal (like Tboy suggested) and use for both 30 cal and 556. Really...All of the cans are good. It comes down to what's more important to you: db, price, consistency, accuracy, durability, QD or not QD, customer service,.... I do have an M1A SOCOM that I could use the 30 cal. on...........and if I could use the same can on my 2 AR's, then I'd be in high cotton! JTAC Supply has a good price on their YHM cans. Have you ever dealt with them? I appreciate your comments. Peace, Dragonfire52
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
So what are you saying, that the resuts you, Major Malf, and John got aren't trustworthy? They are trustworthy for that day. But if you look, you will see we got different results depending upon the firearm we used. Think of it this way. Take a Honda Civic across country and measure MPG. That is trustworthy. Then drive around NYC. That is trustworthy too, but will be much different. Then take it up Pikes Peak, again, that is trustworthy too, and will also be different. I understand what you're saying about testing on different days. But there are still trends in your data. Certain cans consistently performed at the bottom relative to the rest of the group, and they will always perform that way relative to the rest of the group no matter what the environment. It's noteworthy that AAC's indoor testing gave almost identical NSRs to this test. The reason that I'm such a proponent of getting a good can is that they have very poor resale value, and the cost differences just aren't very great between the non-ti cans. There's no reason to give up those db and weight unless you just can't find a stocking dealer for the one you want. Quoted:
Quoted:
And it was 30 rounds total, out of each can, all shot at the same time, and shot on 3 different guns. No, it was 10 rounds per can/rifle to make the measurement. And three rifles makes 30 rounds for the ones tested on the ar15. I'm satisfied that you tested it enough to give your data statistical significance. If you didn't there wouldn't be any point at all to the tests. Quoted:
Quoted:
5db is quite a bit, imo. One can varied 4 dB just changing host rifles, several others varied 2+ dB. I'm still looking at the trends in the group, not between groups. Trends between groups tell us a lot more about the rifles than the cans. Quoted:
Quoted:
But it's not just the sound reduction - the thing is heavy. I should know since I've had one of yours for over a year! I know most 308 cans are, but the 19.5oz of the sd is really attractive. You have a good can, 762 cans are bigger and heavier. Technology is changing fast, there are more and more Ti options and I expect more to be announced at SHOT. I don't see the point of this statement, except that maybe I'm being unfair singling out the weight of the YHM since it is just average in weight. But a 762 can doesn't have to be much heavier if you choose wisely. And I don't like Ti. It drives up the cost of the can unnecessarily. I hope I'm not being too annoying. I really do appreciate the testing you did. 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Thanks Mojo..............so you'd buy another YHM product? Peace, Dragonfire52 Definitely. I would buy YHM 30 cal (like Tboy suggested) and use for both 30 cal and 556. Really...All of the cans are good. It comes down to what's more important to you: db, price, consistency, accuracy, durability, QD or not QD, customer service,.... I do have an M1A SOCOM that I could use the 30 cal. on...........and if I could use the same can on my 2 AR's, then I'd be in high cotton! JTAC Supply has a good price on their YHM cans. Have you ever dealt with them? I appreciate your comments. Peace, Dragonfire52
I have never dealt with JTAC Supply, but RenegadeX is the local DFWer who is very knowledgeable on different suppressors and a Class 3 dealer also. |
|
Quoted: It is a very small sample size. While you may seen trends, there are also anomolies from the bigger picture. Also, NSR dB does not relate to perception of quiet, which is another problem.Quoted: Quoted: So what are you saying, that the resuts you, Major Malf, and John got aren't trustworthy? They are trustworthy for that day. But if you look, you will see we got different results depending upon the firearm we used. Think of it this way. Take a Honda Civic across country and measure MPG. That is trustworthy. Then drive around NYC. That is trustworthy too, but will be much different. Then take it up Pikes Peak, again, that is trustworthy too, and will also be different. I understand what you're saying about testing on different days. But there are still trends in your data. Certain cans consistently performed at the bottom relative to the rest of the group, and they will always perform that way relative to the rest of the group no matter what the environment. It's noteworthy that AAC's indoor testing gave almost identical NSRs to this test. The reason that I'm such a proponent of getting a good can is that they have very poor resale value, and the cost differences just aren't very great between the non-ti cans. There's no reason to give up those db and weight unless you just can't find a stocking dealer for the one you want. |
|
Quoted: Only John can answer that.Quoted: It is a very small sample size. While you may seen trends, there are also anomolies from the bigger picture. Also, NSR dB does not relate to perception of quiet, which is another problem. So what was the point of the test? |
|
Skillshot,
The point of the test was to get a general idea of the performance of each can v. the other can on the same day. I perceive the YHM 30 cal can to be very loud. That said, I wasn't able to hear any other cans on that FN FAl so I have nothing to compare it to. Now, if you have an M1A, you need to make sure that you can get a mount. AAC was rumored to be working on an M1A mount. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I like my YHM phantom. We put it up against the similar prices AAC cans... you really could not tell any difference at all in sound suppression.... as is the case with most 5.56 cans. But they have a really tight bore, so why buy one? I'd get a M4-1000 over a yhm 5.56 can. It has a .300 bore all the way through, is 4oz lighter, uses better materials, is better constructed, works just as well, and is only $60 more retail. Though many of us, including me, don't like standard size 5.56 cans because of the blowback issues. A lot of your post is false.... or at best, opinion. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I like my YHM phantom. We put it up against the similar prices AAC cans... you really could not tell any difference at all in sound suppression.... as is the case with most 5.56 cans. But they have a really tight bore, so why buy one? I'd get a M4-1000 over a yhm 5.56 can. It has a .300 bore all the way through, is 4oz lighter, uses better materials, is better constructed, works just as well, and is only $60 more retail. Though many of us, including me, don't like standard size 5.56 cans because of the blowback issues. A lot of your post is false.... or at best, opinion.  All the numbers I stated were factual and the last statement you said yourself while you were holding a yhm 5.56 can at the last Tiger Valley event. I happen to agree with it. Unless I misheard you. The YHM blast baffle is .241.
|
|
Below:
Quoted:
But they have a really tight bore, so why buy one? Since when was the the defacto standard on which to purchase a supressor? Quoted:
I'd get a M4-1000 over a yhm 5.56 can. It has a .300 bore all the way through Do you have technical data that having a larger bore assists in reduced blowback or baffle strikes? Quoted:
is 4oz lighter The *YHM Stainless* phantom, which I have, and which is the SAME PRICE POINT and actual competitor to the AAC M4-1000, is only 1 OUNCE heavier than the AAC. Quoted:
uses better materials, is better constructed, Both of these are stainless bodies, with inconel blast baffles. So the materials are the same. Better constructed? Please provide empirical failure data under typical (or even atypical) use that provides for this statement. Quoted:
works just as well, and is only $60 more retail. Ahhhh.... I see you are comparing the lower model to this one. I was comparing the actual competitor.... the Stainless Phantom. Quoted:
Though many of us, including me, don't like standard size 5.56 cans because of the blowback issues. I totally agree with you there. Especially when FA.... and compounded by my left handedness placing my mouth on the side of the ejection port. |
|
Yeah, I'm comparing the stainless phantom to the latest m4-1000. All the numbers are in John's latest review, and they're actual measured numbers, not manufacturers numbers. Everything I've said is correct.
As for evidence that a larger bore is safer...come on. That's just common sense. |
|
Quoted: This is unbelievable. You spent a lot of your time, ammunition, and took a hit when your demo cans depreciated, and you're telling me you have no idea WHY you did it? I know why I participated. You did not ask that. You asked what the purpose of the test was. The test was NOT mine. It was Johns. The results are on his website. I cannot speak for him. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Be careful basing an entire purchase on 10 shots fired on a given day. I have seen stuff measure 5+ dB on different days, even 2-3 dB in just a few hours. Many of the shot strings have 6/7/8 dB difference just within the ten shots, and some can take 3/4/5 shots to clear all the FRP. Note that metering good on one gun/ammo combo does not translate to metering good on your gun/ammo. Just because a can meters loud on a given day, does not mean it is loud. So if possible hear it for yourself. The YHM is a good can, even though the dB numbers may not reflect it.
Quoted:
Quoted:
Thanks Mojo..............so you'd buy another YHM product? Peace, Dragonfire52 Definitely. I would buy YHM 30 cal (like Tboy suggested) and use for both 30 cal and 556. Really...All of the cans are good. It comes down to what's more important to you: db, price, consistency, accuracy, durability, QD or not QD, customer service,.... I'd skip the YHM. It metered badly and it is heavy. The AAC 762sd is way better and only $150 more. I'd get almost any 308 can (Gemtech, SRT, OPS, SWR) over the yhm. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I have the 30 cal phantom. Love it. Only complaint is its on the heavy side IMHO. AKJEFF, Thanks for the input. Would you buy another YHM suppressor? Peace, Dragonfire52 YES! I had a problem with mine-my fault 100% and they took care of me. Their customer service COULD NOT HAVE BEEN BETTER! |
|
Quoted: Most posts I see reference Can X as quieter than Can Y, without regard to the ammo or gun that was used. I have yet to see any MFG give a full report of gun/ammo/etc when posting dB numbers for their cans. So while you may understand these expected changes, my observation of posts leads me to conclude the vast majority do not, and even if they do, do not know what the test config was in most cases.Quoted: They are trustworthy for that day. But if you look, you will see we got different results depending upon the firearm we used. I understand what you're saying WRT weather and such, but it's expected that changing the firearm will impact the results. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Most posts I see reference Can X as quieter than Can Y, without regard to the ammo or gun that was used. I have yet to see any MFG give a full report of gun/ammo/etc when posting dB numbers for their cans. So while you may understand these expected changes, my observation of posts leads me to conclude the vast majority do not, and even if they do, do not know what the test config was in most cases.Quoted: They are trustworthy for that day. But if you look, you will see we got different results depending upon the firearm we used. I understand what you're saying WRT weather and such, but it's expected that changing the firearm will impact the results. Fair enough. There's also the (I feel larger) issue of the meter treating all frequencies equally while the human ear does not. I think the testing John performs is a great data point, but certainly not the final authority on which can is 'best.' Hearing multiple cans in person is ideal, and is the reason I hope to attend some large suppressor shoots in the future, but not everybody has the option. |
|
I have a AAC 5.56 and really like it. I use it mainly on a old J C Higgins mag. feed for shooting snakes and such. I have shot beside other cans and really can't tell much difference. The owner, at least I think he is, is the most rude fool mouth and dishonest person I've ever done business with. I did tell him to frame my check, he will never see another one. At that time I had a indoor range and rented a AR-15 converted to full auto with the can, I steered has much business to other can mfg. as I possibly could. I know that some people don't care one way or the other about the person they are doing business with, but I do, and so do a lot of other people!
Tom Reynolds [email protected] |