Our M4 "QD" Sound Suppressor was developed for a USSOCOM requirement administered through a Navy contracting element at Crane, IN. approximately six years ago. We won the competition because ours was the only suppressor to survive (repeatidly) a late developing requirement to fire 210 rounds full-auto as fast as one can load and fire seven fully loaded magazines.
I emphasis "late developing", because up to that point dB reduction and weight/size were primary design drivers. When the 210 FA requirement was communicated, we asked why? Answer was, "if a point man is effecticely engaged, he may be required to fire most/all his basic load without the opportunity to remove the suppressor at some pre-determined safety point". Made sense to us.
Consequently, material and weight changes were made (i.e., new, tougher material was more expensive, very hard to machine, and heavier as well) to meet the FA evolving requirement. Our final design won hands down however, and it was the one to get the National Stock Number, safety certification, etc.
After initial deliveries, the redundant "circular" lock was added to prevent the gate from opening inadvertently. Then some Ranger/Airborne Soldiers showed us a way to detent this circular lock as well (thanks guys), and this has been incorportated in all new production for the past several years. We also developed, provided samples, offered this as a retrofit kit, but no one has ever ordered any of the kits.
So the result is that there are certainly early models still out in the field and in use.
Early on we heard of suppressors failing. We learned subsequently that imaginative users had mounted the A2 like "QD" FS/Compensator on M249 SAW's. Well the supressor was not developed against such a "machine gun" requirement. It was made to meet an M4A1 Carbine requirement. So somewhere into the third 200-round SAW magazine, the thing gives up. But then this suppressor looks real broke. As a former Ornance Officer, my concern is, an unknowing Soldier being issued a suppressor that was originally installed on a SAW, was "cooked" (fired over 400 rounds) repeatidly over time while on a machine gun, but otherwise appears serviceable. So it is no surprise to me that some users may not have the best opinion of this product, given they have no knowledge of its liife history.
Allso, reports of "failures" are typically blown (sorry, poor choice of words here) out of porportion--especially in the very small sound suppressor world. And no matter what the facts were (e.g., "somewhere into the third 200-round magazine it got glowing red-hot, and a hole blew out the side"...and yes, luckily no one was hurt and the gun is ok") you can't shake the rap.
The most important point I wish to make is that sound suppressors for unrestricted military use as described above, are not viable commercial products, mostly because our government makes it too dificult for most of us to own a ssuppressor; and secondly, 99% of commercial customers want maximum dB reduction and very light weight--two things not very compatible with FA machine gun employment. So the idea that a "commercial off-the-shelf" product will meet severe military environmental requirements is pretty remote.
ColdBlue sends...