User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 2:09:33 AM EDT
Looks like SilencerCo just launched a new site to my knowledge and the K cans are now listed.
Octane K 45 Spec Sheet Osprey K 45 Spec Sheet ETA: Video 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 2:13:53 AM EDT
[#1]
Hopefully with the release of the K version someone will have a killer deal on the reg Fullsize octane 45. I'm in the market for another one and the K version just doesn't do it for me
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 2:16:20 AM EDT
[#2]
Wow, loud numbers.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 2:39:05 AM EDT
[#3]
Not really seeing the big benefit going to a K can on these. Just my opinion. On the Osprey 9mm you lose 10db going to the K can
 . 132db on the standard Octane .45 and 139.8db on the Octane .45 K. No thanks. I'm a huge Silencerco fan, but the Osprey and Octane K cans just don't appeal to me. I'm happy with my standard Octanes.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 6:54:21 AM EDT
[#4]
Wow, not that impressive coming from SiCo. I was hoping for the Octane K to at least compete with the Griffin REV series, but I guess I'll be going that route for my next 9mm can.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 7:04:36 AM EDT
[#5]
Woulda considered an Osprey 9mm k, I'll pass on a 45k. Octane K looks like a complet disappointment, as much as I like SiCo, Griffin Revolution seems to be the new king of versatility.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 7:23:58 AM EDT
[#6]
I want a an Octane in .45, I have the 9MM. I also have two Ospreys, one in 9 the other in .45.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 8:23:03 AM EDT
[#7]
Yeah, by their own numbers, for the Osprey, you gain 8 dB from the 9mm to the K, and it's only a half inch shorter.
For a short can, check out the AAC Ti-rant 9s. It's only 5 inches long. I have one and have used it on a Glock 19 and HK USP. Does a great job on both. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 9:43:13 AM EDT
[#8]
Also interesting to see that the Osprey 45 with 9mm meters at 125.2 dB while the Osprey 9 meters at 127.0 dB.
Yeah, the "K" models are probably not for me. The only shorty that somewhat interests me right now is the Ti-Rant 9s. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 10:15:08 AM EDT
[#9]
Don't understand the complaints, these are quieter than the short Ti-rants, no?
I don't shoot .45, yet these still seem compelling for 9mm hosts. I bet 9mm K versions would be killer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 10:52:21 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Don't understand the complaints, these are quieter than the short Ti-rants, no? I don't shoot .45, yet these still seem compelling for 9mm hosts. I bet 9mm K versions would be killer. I think they are comparable on the 9. AAC gives dB reduction while Silencerco gives absolute dB numbers. In the industry comparison video done by SWR, the unsuppressed baseline is 159.31 dB The Octane 9 meters at 126.83 dB = 32.48 dB reduction The TiRant 9 meters at 125.85 dB = 33.46 dB reduction AAC's specs say 35 to 38 dB for the Ti-Rant 9, so the numbers are in the ballpark. The 9s does 22 dB dry which would put it at around 137-138 dB The Octane 45K does ~136 dB but the length of the can is 6.85 inches The 9s is 5.07" which makes it a more compelling short 9mm can. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 10:53:33 AM EDT
[#11]
I think the issue is that the Tirant 9s is 5 inches, and this K model is 6.5 inches, so quite a bit longer, and with the Osprey, larger from the rectangular size.
The numbers AAC lists forthe 9s on their web site are not impressive - 19 dB I think. I bought one during the Great Panic of 2013, not expecting that much, but it's really quiet. I put a dollop of wire pulling gel in it, and it's quiet. WIth plugs in, as my range requires, all you really hear is the sound of the plate being knocked down. In comparison, a .380 is loud to fire with only plugs due to a close concrete wall. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 11:16:54 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The 9s does 22 dB dry which would put it at around 137-138 dB The Octane 45K does ~136 dB but the length of the can is 6.85 inches The 9s is 5.07" which makes it a more compelling short 9mm can. I see. I was going by the SS vid on the 9s, which had it around 141-142. Didn't really appreciate the length difference. Still, comparing 45K cans to the 9s isn't really apples to apples. Hope to see an Octane 9K one day. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 11:39:38 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Still, comparing 45K cans to the 9s isn't really apples to apples. Hope to see an Octane 9K one day. You and me both - I still like the CTA design and would like to maintain piston compatibility. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 12:50:10 PM EDT
[#14]
I would like to see an upgrade to the octane that uses the salvo design for the CTA that way you can pick the length / sound reduction. It would be nice if the aft just let them swap out the baffle stack on the darn thing so you could have a CTA 9mm stack and a .45 stack that you could choose how long you want it and what host its specific for. But thats never going to happen.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 1:46:17 PM EDT
[#15]
Why all the comparisons to the 9s?
Wouldn't the 45s be the one we should be comparing? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 2:19:08 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I would like to see an upgrade to the octane that uses the salvo design for the CTA that way you can pick the length / sound reduction. It would be nice if the aft just let them swap out the baffle stack on the darn thing so you could have a CTA 9mm stack and a .45 stack that you could choose how long you want it and what host its specific for. But thats never going to happen. That would be AWESOME.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 2:35:23 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why all the comparisons to the 9s? Wouldn't the 45s be the one we should be comparing? For me, it's because I have a lot more compact 9mm handguns than I have compact 45 handguns - and a compact handgun just begs for a compact can. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 3:20:04 PM EDT
[#18]
With AAC perhaps going bye-bye, I put the brakes on a 9-s and other options...the 45k does look interesting.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 3:31:44 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
With AAC perhaps going bye-bye. 
Care to share your source? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 3:39:47 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
With AAC perhaps going bye-bye, I put the brakes on a 9-s and other options...the 45k does look interesting. What makes you think AAC is going away? They just introduced a new product. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 3:42:29 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What makes you think AAC is going away? They just introduced a new product. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
With AAC perhaps going bye-bye, I put the brakes on a 9-s and other options...the 45k does look interesting. What makes you think AAC is going away? They just introduced a new product. Some article I read. who knows if it's true though ETA: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/12/foghorn/john-hollister-derek-smith-quit-aac/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 3:49:44 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Some article I read. who knows if it's true though ETA: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/12/foghorn/john-hollister-derek-smith-quit-aac/ Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
With AAC perhaps going bye-bye, I put the brakes on a 9-s and other options...the 45k does look interesting. What makes you think AAC is going away? They just introduced a new product. Some article I read. who knows if it's true though ETA: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/12/foghorn/john-hollister-derek-smith-quit-aac/ I thought they just laid people off who didn't want to move. AAC is too valuable of a brand to FG |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 5:23:30 PM EDT
[#23]
Let's not clutter this thread with unsubstantiated AAC BS. It's been discussed in other threads and it's not happening.
I think if you compare the K specs to the full size .45 specs, what you get in the smaller package is pretty compelling. If they can do the same in 9mm versions down the road, I'm in for an Octane 9 K. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 5:40:04 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Let's not clutter this thread with unsubstantiated AAC BS. It's been discussed in other threads and it's not happening. I think if you compare the K specs to the full size .45 specs, what you get in the smaller package is pretty compelling. If they can do the same in 9mm versions down the road, I'm in for an Octane 9 K. I agree. Loud is relative and can be acceptable if you know what you're getting in to. I bought a Ti-rant 9mm and a Thompson Machine Micro 9mm (4.25") within a week of each other. This was after evaluating a osprey .45 (same length as a ti-rant 9mm) on multiple hosts. I don't care to chase decibels with centerfire cans so I'm okay with a 4.25" suppressor (more like a moderator) on hosts like a G26, kahr 9mm, smaller CZs. I'm excited in the options for shorter, louder, cans. It's not like companies are discontinuing their longer, quieter cans. This is only good news. May not be as quiet as you want but it's steps in the right direction. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 7:57:23 PM EDT
[#25]
I have an octane 45 (well approved at least waiting on the mail) and I would jump on an octane 9-k but I think a 45k gives up too much internal volume on a 45 for what you would gain (lose) in length
Mike |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 8:57:37 PM EDT
[#26]
remember it wasn't that long ago that people told you it wasn't worth suppressing any 45 because it was too loud. The last generation of cans changed that... however, there are limitations to everything and going short gets you knocking on the 140 threshold when shooting .45.
For saving less than 1.5 inches, doesn't seem worth it... maybe a K version of the 9mm cans will make more sense. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 9:04:27 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
remember it wasn't that long ago that people told you it wasn't worth suppressing any 45 because it was too loud. The last generation of cans changed that... however, there are limitations to everything and going short gets you knocking on the 140 threshold when shooting .45. For saving less than 1.5 inches, doesn't seem worth it... maybe a K version of the 9mm cans will make more sense. Actually.... Osprey savings (45 to K): 1.65" and 3.1oz Octane savings (45 to K): 1.65" and 2.7oz |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 9:39:02 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Actually.... Osprey savings (45 to K): 1.65" and 3.1oz Octane savings (45 to K): 1.65" and 2.7oz Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
remember it wasn't that long ago that people told you it wasn't worth suppressing any 45 because it was too loud. The last generation of cans changed that... however, there are limitations to everything and going short gets you knocking on the 140 threshold when shooting .45. For saving less than 1.5 inches, doesn't seem worth it... maybe a K version of the 9mm cans will make more sense. Actually.... Osprey savings (45 to K): 1.65" and 3.1oz Octane savings (45 to K): 1.65" and 2.7oz You're right, but semantics. The 3.1oz seems much more significant to me |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 11:09:19 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're right, but semantics. The 3.1oz seems much more significant to me Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
remember it wasn't that long ago that people told you it wasn't worth suppressing any 45 because it was too loud. The last generation of cans changed that... however, there are limitations to everything and going short gets you knocking on the 140 threshold when shooting .45. For saving less than 1.5 inches, doesn't seem worth it... maybe a K version of the 9mm cans will make more sense. Actually.... Osprey savings (45 to K): 1.65" and 3.1oz Octane savings (45 to K): 1.65" and 2.7oz You're right, but semantics. The 3.1oz seems much more significant to me Was going to post the same thing. I would think I'd notice the weight before the .15". Then again...is 3oz perceptible? Either way, good to have (more) options. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 11:21:23 PM EDT
[#30]
nevermind
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 11:31:41 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Was going to post the same thing. I would think I'd notice the weight before the .15". Then again...is 3oz perceptible? Either way, good to have (more) options. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: remember it wasn't that long ago that people told you it wasn't worth suppressing any 45 because it was too loud. The last generation of cans changed that... however, there are limitations to everything and going short gets you knocking on the 140 threshold when shooting .45. For saving less than 1.5 inches, doesn't seem worth it... maybe a K version of the 9mm cans will make more sense. Actually.... Osprey savings (45 to K): 1.65" and 3.1oz Octane savings (45 to K): 1.65" and 2.7oz You're right, but semantics. The 3.1oz seems much more significant to me Was going to post the same thing. I would think I'd notice the weight before the .15". Then again...is 3oz perceptible? Either way, good to have (more) options. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 11:36:24 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Absolutely, in a pistol can. Moreso in a rimfire can, less in a rifle can. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
remember it wasn't that long ago that people told you it wasn't worth suppressing any 45 because it was too loud. The last generation of cans changed that... however, there are limitations to everything and going short gets you knocking on the 140 threshold when shooting .45. For saving less than 1.5 inches, doesn't seem worth it... maybe a K version of the 9mm cans will make more sense. Actually.... Osprey savings (45 to K): 1.65" and 3.1oz Octane savings (45 to K): 1.65" and 2.7oz You're right, but semantics. The 3.1oz seems much more significant to me Was going to post the same thing. I would think I'd notice the weight before the .15". Then again...is 3oz perceptible? Either way, good to have (more) options. good point, thx. I have much less time behind pistol cans than rifle ones, and I can see your point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2015 9:02:09 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wow, not that impressive coming from SiCo. I was hoping for the Octane K to at least compete with the Griffin REV series, but I guess I'll be going that route for my next 9mm can. Pretty much this |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2015 9:07:58 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Pretty much this Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Wow, not that impressive coming from SiCo. I was hoping for the Octane K to at least compete with the Griffin REV series, but I guess I'll be going that route for my next 9mm can. Pretty much this Sounds like they built them to compete for a military contract. Probably why they are not modular. Either way Silencerco puts out products fast. In a one year period they released the Saker 7.62, Harverster, Harvester Big Bore, Salvo 12, a new line of barrels and a line of ammunition. I have no doubt we will see a modular can soon.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
