Our old website is gone.  

We've been meaning to do this for a long time.  Getting around to it was tough.  

NEW SITE

Correction I talked to my graphic designer, we're going with that design from the website front logo only.  We like that better than the front left breast
logo and back logo design.  So thanks.

The designer lives 1/3 of a mile from a T shirt company that prints shirts for Holister, Abercrombie and Fitch, AE, Harley Davidson, and the US Army.  
I wouldn't have thought the US Army T-shirts were cool, but it turns out the Army makes those airborne and infantry shirts that you see in Ranger
Joes catalog which are a little loud but still a quality product- I always thought those were privately manufactured for retailers, but they are actually
something recruiting command has their hand in.
 
We toured that facility and realized it's possible to deliver people a lot more value than most T-shirts without too much additional cost.  There is a lot of
different base T shirt companies and materials, and some of them fit, look, and feel a lot better than others.  Most shirt you see are cheap.  They can
dye a shirt so the fibers can flex and expand without ripping the graphic, because there is no PVC-based logo applied.  They also do the more
conventional rubbery feeling PVC base but it's just one of a lot of technologies they have and use for screen printing shirts.  

It was like a Mr. Rodgers tour of the T shirt business.  I enjoyed it, even though we were touring after 40 hours without sleep.

NICE looking site!

The One-Zero certainly is interesting.  May I ask why you went with a square profile?  I can't wait to see test results for it.  John is going to test one, right?

That's the plan- they are in production.  The current intent is for sound and endurance testing.  The square profile has a lot to do with the manufacturing method.  The manufacturing method by design is intended for better cooling and strength.  Square has positive and negative implications, as obviously gas tends to travel in a round (teardrop shaped) profile, and square profiles allow less obstruction for flashlights and optics.  Everything you do in engineering has positive and negative implications so that's a constant.

Thanks- I know there are probably a few typos in there, I have to read over everything and get a list to a programmer.
I was just happy he was able to get this in because when people get buried in work, it can take weeks to wrap up a project.

A lot of the silencers we ran were very small runs.  Silencers aren't really as popular as some of the ad campaigns would have you believe.  I don't know why as they are cool as shit, but that's just the truth in it. The operator is sold out currently We're not sure what the point would be of running it again, the AAC Tirant .45 shares a very similar wet reduction and has a booster.  It also wasn't smear marketed like the Operator was by AAC over on silencertalk.  The One Zero would hold 22-250.   The Bushwacker would as well and we have a couple of those left.  As for the other two, they are very light silencers and I haven't tested anything heavy so I'd just say no to be safe.  The Scout is the lightest stainless .308 silencer I know of.  

(Locked ... this is a technical forum)

Boy I sure like Red Camera's website from the past couple years?

http://www.red.com

Hey Pot, the Kettle called.... Black Distressed backgrounds seem to be the new... well... Black.

No.  If you had knowledge of that system you would be able to tell how it was different and how it is related.  The square silencer isn't actually goofy at all.  
It represents a patentable construction method.  We've talked to experts and they have told us it is patentable, and we have patents pending on it.

In case you aren't familiar with that, that means it hasn't been used in industry before as we've used it here.  Among other things, It allows us to use more high nickel super alloy than any
other 5.56 silencer in the industry.  The goal? Durability, a less intentional consequence- value added to the customer at no additional cost when compared to the competition.

Really we'd like to see our product in the hands of combat soldiers, because we are combat soldiers and it would be an honor to put build something good enough to be requested by warriors.  

We are closing out the $345 5.56 silencers. The One Zero is replacing both the Bushwacker and the Spartan at least for now.  The Bushwacker could return, but thats up in the air.  
The spartan is a flyweight 16.5 ounce 304LSS can with 26DB reduction.  That price is probably industry competitive with silencers that have specs like that.

Talking to your self with incorrect spelling is a sign.

But ironic and funny that you'd childlessly use the word "fanboy".

ETA - You and goodwi77 have both been called up to the principal's office ... forevermore, I can't imagine what that's about.

How quaint that you managed to slip in a nice little insult about insults.

Because that takes my entire design and brings into question its originality and with it my right to claim it as my product. That's probably nearing a thousand
hours of engineering work, the culmination thus far of invested years of time.  Mountains of resources have been allocated to this project.

Maybe now you understand why people take these comments and are forced to respond seriously to them.

I don't have an M4QD.  I was issued and ran operational missions with one on a past deployment.  I've never owned one.  This project has involved a lot of invested time,
waiting to see results, and all I have right now is CFD to go on to estimate the success of this project.  So I've tested all my past projects in CFD with the intent
of developing a feeling for how CFD is applicable to silencers and how predictable it's results are to actual performance.  At the insistance of my graphic designer, I
recently did model a conceptual M4QD from pictures for a CFD study to create a item of interest for the fan page viewers.  That model was run through CFD to see
how CFD would compare it to my upcoming product that is in production currently.  Those results, minus the comparison to my product, are talked about on my website's
facebook fan page, which you can visit by following the link on the main page of our website.  You'll also get a chance to see a better concept of how the M4QD's mounting
system works there.  

I enjoyed the project, but so far I'm unconvinced CFD is completely reliable or even anything better than a fun illustration of jazzy looking graphics on the screen. The problem
right now is the program I'm using measures maximum velocity.  In nearly all products I've tested thus far that max velocity has occurred at the exit aperture where the
greatest differential of pressure exists with the imput data I've given the projects.  I recently ran a study on a prototypical silencer from a foreign manufacturer I correspond
with and it showed maximum velocity wasn't at the exit aperture- in other words outside of his baffle having a sort of strange and wonderful technology advantage, CFD's
summary results probably failed to accurately represent the performance of that product.  Accurate representation is very important as without it the output data is garbage-
how is an engineer supposed to improve something when the CFD spits him a number that may not be reflective of the element of the analysis he is looking for?

Another of the problems with it, is it's hard to depict entrance gas in a way that is both realistic and consistent from study to study. There is a bullet in a silencer in reality
and in CFD there is no bullet, so it may be a technology that just misses the boat.  Only more testing of modeled products that have real sound test data to contrast with
will be able to answer that question for me.

The fluke may be unique to that baffle system, or it may represent an error of the CFD software as it pertains to that particular baffle style so I haven't ruled anything out the study
thus far is too isolated to be evidence of a rule or anything of that nature.

That's the heart of it right there.  I'll have to see how this thing performs when it's not inside a computer.

That mesh and artifact statement makes a ton of sense.  For that you would need a way to measure exit velocity of gas.  Not sure how that would work out, but it would help a lot by allowing one to tweak the CFD input until the output was the same and venture from there in an effort to find better output characteristics.

As far as pictures, the first production examples we have will be the first time we have an oppotunity to photograph it.  It's going to be 6-8 weeks still.  The cheaper silencers bolt together so you make parts and you have silencers.  The more advanced a silencer gets the more operations are involved start to finish, and operations might add strength and value but they eat time.