Maybe this has been covered somewhere and I just can't find it. My search-fu is fairly weak. How much quicker will my can wear out on a 10"-12" 5.56 barrel as compared to non-SBR lengths? The can is thread-mounting (AAC Ranger) so there's no break or hider to absorb any of the damage...

Thanks fellas!

I have never heard of a quality 5.56 suppressor that wore out through civilian use... ever.

Quoted: Maybe this has been covered somewhere and I just can't find it. My search-fu is fairly weak. How much quicker will my can wear out on a 10"-12" 5.56 barrel as compared to non-SBR lengths? The can is thread-mounting (AAC Ranger) so there's no break or hider to absorb any of the damage... Thanks fellas!

I think you will get around 15,000 out of semi auto usage and about 8,000 on full auto.

You would spend around $6,500 on ammo before you needed the internals replaced.  I think most companies charge you half retail ($237.50 for the AAC Ranger 2) to rebuild your cans guts, so its really a non issue.

Thanks guys! That's a load off, since it's too late to back out now anyway!

Quoted: I think you will get around 15,000 out of semi auto usage and about 8,000 on full auto.

your kidding right? Your numbers are way off.

Is this from any testing or did you pull those out of your ass?

Not t be a smart a--     but what are the real numbers?

Quoted: Not t be a smart a--     but what are the real numbers?

Ive gone past 10K with a F/A 10"and Halo- I doubt anybody has tested it on the civi side since you would be destroying a suppresor and a shitload of ammo.

Quoted: Not t be a smart a--     but what are the real numbers?

I do not have a definitive answer, but I have a Gemtech M4-96D purchased in 2001 that has in excess of 10K rounds through it.  Works as well as it did new.  All the rounds through it were burst and auto  fire except when I was shooting Tannerite.

Quoted: Quoted: I think you will get around 15,000 out of semi auto usage and about 8,000 on full auto. your kidding right? Your numbers are way off. Is this from any testing or did you pull those out of your ass?

I wouldn't waste that much ammo to test that of course.  Gemtech and AAC have both given me those numbers.  Thanks for the ass comment.  

Is that without cleaning?

Quoted: I wouldn't waste that much ammo to test that of course.  Gemtech and AAC have both given me those numbers.  Thanks for the ass comment.

You're welcome

You always jumps on the testing protocols/ validity of numbers/ and other shit whenever anybody post "facts" about can testing. Sucks when you get called out on it doesn't it?  

as youve posted before

Quoted: #3.  ANY testing by a manufacturer should be taken with a HUGE grain of salt, infact perhaps an entire truckload.

Then why didn't you at least say where you got the numbers and advise the user he should stock upon salt?

sorry for the hijack on the thread, But looks like I'll be ok my SBR is semi only so I'll be shooting for a long time before I ever get to numbers like that.

Quoted: Quoted: I wouldn't waste that much ammo to test that of course.  Gemtech and AAC have both given me those numbers.  Thanks for the ass comment.   You're welcome You always jumps on the testing protocols/ validity of numbers/ and other shit whenever anybody post "facts" about can testing. Sucks when you get called out on it doesn't it?   as youve posted before Quoted: #3.  ANY testing by a manufacturer should be taken with a HUGE grain of salt, infact perhaps an entire truckload.   Then why didn't you at least say where you got the numbers and advise the user he should stock upon salt?

Thanks for "calling me out"  My facts were solid and I dont need to explain them to you.  I was trying to help the guy, far more than you ever do for anyone.  

Why don't you guys stop crapping in this guy's thread?  Take it to the pit.

-X

Most quality suppressors like the AAC M4-2000 and SureFire cans seem to have rated lives longer than a barrel.  Something like 30-50 thousand rounds.  

Sheesh...I had no idea how much anger a simple gun-related question could induce...almost like I drew a cartoon of Mohammed...

Can't we all just get along? And shoot stuff?

Quoted: I wouldn't waste that much ammo to test that of course.  Gemtech and AAC have both given me those numbers.  Thanks for the ass comment.

LMFAO, aren't you the guy who has spent the last two weeks flipping your shit over how no one should trust numbers provided by the manufacturers?

PIT

Suppressor wear is the result of heat and the pressure of the expanding gases.  Full-auto mag dumps will do more damage than singe shots with time to let things cool.

The short barrels dump more heat and pressure into the cans the result is an increase in errosion of the internals.  

Just remember these things do wear out and you have to replace them.  5,000 rounds is a lot of shooting for a recreational, civilian shooter.

Buy the suppressor you want and don't worry about the suppressor wear.  You will most likely buy another suppressor before you wear this one out.

I would rather take 1928's testing any time and any day compared to any companies or people that sorta work for a company but don't really work for one but maybe consult with them.

At least 1928 is honestly( or tries to be) impartial in his testing.

As for the other guy complaining....go back to your master and tell him you got a big bag of fail...

as for wear and tear on cans....just shoot the thing and don't worry about it.

blasting 10k rounds in one day of course will wear any can out compared to 20k rounds over a lifetime of shooting.

Well, I don't know about you Sofa Samurai, but as a true Level 58 Internet Ninja I typically run about 75,000 rounds a day out of my rifle. Guess that's why I have to buy 12 suppressors a week.

Really, I don't shoot much...just as much as I can afford and only semi-auto, and from what i've heard and researched is doesn't sound like I have too much to worry about.

Thanks all for the help guys!  

Quoted: I would rather take 1928's testing any time and any day compared to any companies or people that sorta work for a company but don't really work for one but maybe consult with them. At least 1928 is honestly( or tries to be) impartial in his testing.

WTF did he test? Did you read this thread?


You realize he didn't test any of the numbers he posted IN THIS THREAD, YOU REALIZE THIS POST ONLY APPLIES TO THIS THREAD. He's regurgitating manf numbers. He wasted a lot of bandwidth stating how he doesn't trust manf numbers yet he posts unverified "results" from a manf, something to which he apparently finds disconcerting, yet you still believe him even though he hasn't tested anything.

You need to pull your head out.

Quoted: Thanks for "calling me out"  My facts were solid and I dont need to explain them to you.  I was trying to help the guy, far more than you ever do for anyone.

You really worded your "facts" well with "I think". It should have started "according to GT/AAC" if you really wanted to impress with your fact knowledge

You've bitched an moaned about the "numbers" since day one. I guess its alright to quote a manf when they post round count numbers, but god forbid if they post DBs you want to call them out. Not at all biased.

Quoted: I would say it mostly depends on schedule of fire.  If full auto means two mags at a time with cooling, those are probably reasonable figures.   If you want to burn ten mags back to back in 30 round bursts, the [mentioned stainless] cans will probably last the initial seven mags or less. Full auto is abusive.  I totally agree with you, it will shorten a can's life expectancy, because stainless erodes more aggressively at elevated temperatures [temperatures more likely encountered in auto use than conservative semi-auto use.   I think a manufacturers statement of wear life is a reasonable thing to quote.

but this is not a " "

Quoted: I think you will get around 15,000 out of semi auto usage and about 8,000 on full auto.

as written its a thought.

I do agree it depends on the firing schedule, It could be as little as 3 betas or tens of thousands- all on F/A

height=8

Quoted: Well, I don't know about you Sofa Samurai, but as a true Level 58 Internet Ninja ...]

That's a trick statement.....Internet Ninjas don't have levels.




They have belts.

Uh oh. Busted.

hey
I take it from your original post that you have the AAC can, but you're about to put it on a short barrel?  I was curious about the replies, too, as I'm waiting for my stamps to come back for both.

I now live in fear of flaming when I finally get the thing home and start posting my experiences with it. (LMT 10.5/AAC Ranger 2)

Quoted: Sometimes they get a little too serious around here. I take it from your original post that you have the AAC can, but you're about to put it on a short barrel?  I was curious about the replies, too, as I'm waiting for my stamps to come back for both. I now live in fear of flaming when I finally get the thing home and start posting my experiences with it. (LMT 10.5/AAC Ranger 2)

You would be correct. I have an old-style Ranger that I've only run on a 16". I'm in paperwork limbo on my first SBR build, which will wear the Ranger when complete. Trying to decide between a 10.5'' MRP or a 10.5" Noveske VIS.

I'm pretty excited...I'm actually kind of peeing myself a little bit.

Quoted: Quoted: Thanks for "calling me out"  My facts were solid and I dont need to explain them to you.  I was trying to help the guy, far more than you ever do for anyone.   You really worded your "facts" well with "I think". It should have started "according to GT/AAC" if you really wanted to impress with your fact knowledge You've bitched an moaned about the "numbers" since day one. I guess its alright to quote a manf when they post round count numbers, but god forbid if they post DBs you want to call them out. Not at all biased.

Can you understand the difference between dB reduction numbers and the number of rounds fired before a silencer starts to wear out due to baffle erosion?

When you fire a 556 round through a short barrel (7.5"to 14.5") you generate a sandblasting effect on your first baffle.  This is far less pronounced on longer barrels like 20" barrels or longer as the particles are just going slower.  Short barrels magnify the speeding particles/sand blasting effect and silencers used on short barrels wear out faster no matter what the fire schedule is.  Excessive full auto fire, which constitutes burst fire as well as magazine dumps also create tremendous heat which allows the particles to penetrate deeper.  This is why full auto will wear out a silencer faster than semi auto fire, however fast semi auto fire can seriously overheat a silencer too, increasing baffle erosion.  

When I quote AAC and Gemtech as having given me those number I do so with a reasonable amount of confidence, since they both have no particular reason to lie about how long their silencers will last.  The way back machine shows Gemtech saying the M496D has a life exceeding 15,000 rounds.  Robert of AAC told me that about 15,000 is all a person could expect out of a 556 can.  This is not the same as manufacturer stated dB data, which I have called into question recently.  The data that I have called into question is dB numbers posted that are outlandish and unbelievable, I hope you can see the difference.

While I was trying to help the original poster of the question, you chose to derail the thread with your comments that didn't help anyone.  Why don’t you zip back over to the AAC site where you posted this question and ask baldy to answer the question instead of attacking me?

Quoted: Can you understand the difference between dB reduction numbers and the number of rounds fired before a silencer starts to wear out due to baffle erosion? When you fire a 556 .... I know the why, thats not in question When I quote AAC and Gemtech as having given me those number I do so with a reasonable amount of confidence, since they both have no particular reason to lie about how long their silencers will last.  The way back machine shows Gemtech saying the M496D has a life exceeding 15,000 rounds.  Robert of AAC told me that about 15,000 is all a person could expect out of a 556 can.  This is not the same as manufacturer stated dB data, which I have called into question recently.  The data that I have called into question is dB numbers posted that are outlandish and unbelievable, I hope you can see the difference. I know the numbers do not represent the same data types, but you're saying you will believe a manf about their one set of data and not the other(different) set. This is crazy. You question the integrity of company X, but then say they are not lying only if they keep the discussion to suppressor round ratings     While I was trying to help the original poster of the question, you chose to derail the thread with your comments that didn't help anyone.  Why don’t you zip back over to the AAC site where you posted this question and ask baldy to answer the question instead of attacking me? As to this, "Robert of AAC told me that about 15,000 is all a person could expect out of a 556 can" I will ask and the basis behind it.

If you can't see that trusting only selective manf data isn't biased, then you're just kidding yourself and that was the point.

Quoted: Quoted: Can you understand the difference between dB reduction numbers and the number of rounds fired before a silencer starts to wear out due to baffle erosion? When you fire a 556 .... I know the why, thats not in question When I quote AAC and Gemtech as having given me those number I do so with a reasonable amount of confidence, since they both have no particular reason to lie about how long their silencers will last.  The way back machine shows Gemtech saying the M496D has a life exceeding 15,000 rounds.  Robert of AAC told me that about 15,000 is all a person could expect out of a 556 can.  This is not the same as manufacturer stated dB data, which I have called into question recently.  The data that I have called into question is dB numbers posted that are outlandish and unbelievable, I hope you can see the difference. I know the numbers do not represent the same data types, but you're saying you will believe a manf about their one set of data and not the other(different) set. This is crazy. You question the integrity of company X, but then say they are not lying only if they keep the discussion to suppressor round ratings     While I was trying to help the original poster of the question, you chose to derail the thread with your comments that didn't help anyone.  Why don’t you zip back over to the AAC site where you posted this question and ask baldy to answer the question instead of attacking me? As to this, "Robert of AAC told me that about 15,000 is all a person could expect out of a 556 can" I will ask and the basis behind it. If you can't see that trusting only selective manf data isn't biased, then you're just kidding yourself and that was the point.

You are wasting my time and everyone elses with your BS.

Quoted:When I quote AAC and Gemtech as having given me those number I do so with a reasonable amount of confidence, since they both have no particular reason to lie about how long their silencers will last.

Then why do you think they have a reason to lie about dB reduction?  BOTH NSR and lifespan are areas in which manufacturers have a STRONG interest in stretching the truth.  If you think ANY manufacturer in ANY industry has no motivation to lie about the durability of their product, then you are dumber than a doorknob.

Quoted: You are wasting my time and everyone elses with your BS.

According to the number of IMs I have from other people laughing at you, it doesn't seem to be a waste of time.

Quoted:   When I quote AAC and Gemtech as having given me those number I do so with a reasonable amount of confidence, since they both have no particular reason to lie about how long their silencers will last.  The way back machine shows Gemtech saying the M496D has a life exceeding 15,000 rounds.  Robert of AAC told me that about 15,000 is all a person could expect out of a 556 can.  This is not the same as manufacturer stated dB data, which I have called into question recently.  The data that I have called into question is dB numbers posted that are outlandish and unbelievable, I hope you can see the difference.

But on you site you say that you DONT believe a other can manufacturer ,when they talk about what happens after x numbers of rounds ??
But Gemtech and AAC you do believe ??

From your own site/your own words

Surefire claims they fired 1,500 rounds full automatic with an M4 carbine and the silencer "was barely even marked" and "had absolutely nothing wrong with it."  No 556/223 silencer can handle that type of punishment and come out unscathed.*

(ps i do believe you about your statement about surefires comment )

Quoted: Quoted: You are wasting my time and everyone elses with your BS. According to the number of IMs I have from other people laughing at you, it doesn't seem to be a waste of time.

Just because other folks enjoy the personal attacks doesn't mean they're not personal attacks.

The point was made about the actual numbers on the first page, and yet folks continue to attack 1928, trying to make this into a huge contradiction of his stated opinions.

And really, that doesn't matter.

If your response is "well, he does it all the time", than it's still just a personal attack. It has no place here.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You are wasting my time and everyone elses with your BS. According to the number of IMs I have from other people laughing at you, it doesn't seem to be a waste of time. Just because other folks enjoy the personal attacks doesn't mean they're not personal attacks. WTH does that mean??? The point was made about the actual numbers on the first page, and yet folks continue to attack 1928, trying to make this into a huge contradiction of his stated opinions. And really, that doesn't matter. Then why did you post If your response is "well, he does it all the time", than it's still just a personal attack. It has no place here.

WTF?

Please point out the personal attack. Wait there's not one. The only thing I have attacked is his warped logic on "trusting" a manf numbers.

Quoted: WTF? Please point out the personal attack. Wait there's not one. The only thing I have attacked is his warped logic on "trusting" a manf numbers.

You're questioning him, not his information, nor any technical aspects thereof. What does his policy on numbers have to do with this thread AT ALL?