Multi-caliber rifle can

[bryanrheem]

I'm looking for some opinions on a multicaliber can, primarily for .308 and 5.56. I'm not interested in hearing why I should get a specific can for each caliber. I understand that to get the optimal sound reduction you should use the caliber specific suppresor, but since it's already a pain to get the Fairfax County CLEO to sign off and I am also going to be doing other Form 1s on a SBR, I'm going this route.

The hosts will be a Remmington 700 sps (.308) and an AR15 (5.56). I've been looking at the Gemtech HVT with quickmounts for each but I know there are other possibilities.

Any experiences people can share?

[pedal_pusher]

hmm, well you're going to need two muzzle break/adapters, one in 5/8-24 for 308, and another in 1/2-28 tpi for .223. i really like gemtech, particularly for who manufactures them for phil dater, but i'm not sure their 223/556 adapter fits their 308 can. i also like tactical operations out of beverly hills ca, mike rescigno is well known and builds a lot of rifles for swat teams, his suppressors are great and he could custom modify to your needs. surefire also makes a great product and their break/adapter would be my first choice on a 700 for when you're not using a suppressor. without going into the safe, i think their adapters would work, but you'd have to buy one for each caliber which will get pricy.

[ImmortalArms]

"Off the shelf", the Gemtech HVT Quickmount system would work for you. http://www.gem-tech.com/store/pc/7-62MM ... 15p120.htm

While initially you are limited to Gemtech's HVT offering, other manufacturers have modified their cans to mount on Gemtech mounts. They are normally special order jobs.

As Fairfax is so difficult, have you considered forming a trust? You could then bypass the CLEO issue entirely and acquire them as often as the wallet allows for it. I can put you in touch with an attorney in your area that can help. The average fee is $300.

If you need help on the Form 1, feel free to contact me. I would be glad to take a look to help you avoid any "gotchas".

[pedal_pusher]

he can do a trust, or if he has a pre-existing LLC or corporation he can buy through either, but the company then owns the firearms. you can also LLC/Incorporate easily through http://www.incorporate.com ... you just pay a fee and they do all the filing.

[ImmortalArms]

I always caution customers thinking about setting up an LLC or corporation for NFA purposes. These entities require at a minimum, yearly filings with the Commonwealth to keep them valid. If you allow either to lapse you are now in illegal possession ($250K fine and 10 years).

You don't need to pay anyone to set up a company in Virginia. Everything you need to do is right here http://www.scc.virginia.gov/clk/files/brg.pdf

A trust is a one time action that only requires attention when you add or remove items or trustees.

[pedal_pusher]

You don't need to pay anyone to set up a company in Virginia.

you do need to pay filing fees in va, which i think are $75.00 + do a lot of paperwork. what's great about the company corp, - you pay them to do everything and in a couple days you're done. i was giving bryanrheem options in case he already had an LLC/Inc. i'm incorporated, which is better for me then a trust, but to each their own.

[gunderwood]

Get a trust and quit messing with the PITA LEO.

A .308 can on a .223 is going to give pretty good results simply because of how much bigger they typically are than the .223 specific cans. Things to consider:

1. Poorly designed QD mounts will ruin your experience on the bolt action. You just won't get the accuracy if that can is wobbling all around on you. Do your research!

2. QDs a add a not insignificant overhead on the can. Consider a standard thread on if you don't really need the QDs (most of us probably don't), but I have them because they are cool and I don't care about the cost increase.

3. Make sure that the QD mounts between .223 and .308 are interchangeable. Not all of them are. Sure, they make a QD in the right barrel/thread sizes, but that doesn't mean the .308 can attaches to the .223 QD mount side.

4. If the AR is an SBR, I highly recommend some sort of brake to act as a "sacrificial" first baffle.

5. Are you ever going to shoot it without the can? If not the benefits of QD are probably even less...

6. Weight. Good .308 cans tend to weight a lot more than equivalently good .223 can. Between the length added over the barrel and weight a .308 can on your AR will probably make it feel like a pig. It may not look like much difference on paper, but test it out on your rifles and I'd bet you notice a huge difference. Tape some weights to the end of your barrel (works best if you can align the weight to it extends past the end of the barrel like the can will) to mimic the can. I've used full 12oz cans of soda, a few weights, tape and 550 cord to mock up various cans. Please note I'm not advocating making a suppressor, I'm simply mocking up the physical weight and handling impacts of adding a can to the system.


Personally I'm a fan of AAC; best all around package IMHO, but certainly not #1 in every category. Really depends on what you value most. Materials, construction, sound reduction, sound tone, attaching mechanism, cost, etc. I know you don't want to hear it, but I think you would be much happier with a small .223 can to make it hearing safe and retain good handling. Then get a .308 can for the bolt. Mock it up, then let us know what you think...otherwise consider a smaller .308 can like the AAC Cyclone-K or competitors. It's a compromise on both.

[gunderwood]

Here's a few other things to consider.

1. The .308 probably has a much longer barrel than the AR (I'm guessing). I really like Ti cans on bolt actions as they significantly improve the handling of the firearm IMHO. That usually comes a slight tone and a definite cost penalty if they are using high grade Ti. I.e. Ti is an alloy and it does matter which one you use...just like Al, there's "junk" and then there's the good stuff. The military is using the AAC Ti can for the new .300WM, now that's good Ti!

2. If you shoot your AR rapidly (think CQB/SBR vs. SPR), I'm not a fan of Ti cans on them. AFAIK the military has tested them, but prefers the steel (I haven't looked into this lately so perhaps it has changed). Steel doesn't overheat as quickly as Ti, generally has a slightly better tone (obviously subjective, but...), and can actually be made to similar weights on small cans because a Ti can isn't all Ti.

3. One of the issues with suppressing an AR (assuming DI, not a piston) is the blow back. Good AR cans are optimized to reduce the back pressure without impacting cycling reliability. However, most .308 cans are not. It may look like the .308 can is just a larger/longer tube and has more baffles with a bigger hole, but there's actually a lot more to it to make them work as well as they do.

[chrismartin]

This will give you and idea of performance of .308 cans on 5.56 platforms:

http://www.silencerforum.com/forum/show ... (16-quot-)

Personally I'd 100% go with a good 308 silencer rather than a dedicated 5.56 (Note, I own a 5.56 silencer already and wish I had gone 308). I'd prefer the versatility of the 308 silencer and you really don't loose too much performance in the end. The 5.56 out of an AR is loud, even with a silencer.

Here are 308 silencers on a Rem 700 bolt gun:
http://www.silencerforum.com/forum/show ... 700-AAC-SD
(NOTE! Numbers are with supersonic ammo too, all of them do pretty well and it'll be even quieter with subsonic ammo)

The HVT isn't all that great, there are better ones out there. If I were going to get a QD silencer, I'd probably end up with the AAC 762SD-N6 (similar performance as the HVT, but smaller and more durable and rated to 7" 5.56 barrels, all inconel construction would help with baffle erosion on 5.56 rifles with short barrels.) or the 762SD (a little longer, but quieter, only has inconel blast baffle).

I would also go quick detach as it helps prevent the silencer from unscrewing during firing when used on a semi-auto.

[pedal_pusher]

i personally think aac is junk...only because i owned one that didn't last a year, and when i call them, i don't want hear that they supply the worlds most elite military/government cause that's a bunch of bs. aac are great marketers, it's gucci unnecessary technology to fool people who don't know better into spending more then they should...their cans are no better/quieter then awc's. i used to like awc until lynn mcwilliams passing and his wife retiring, then leaving the company to be run by their neighbors kid... whose also another 'talker'. i would put silencerco in the same category.

in the world of suppressors, the simplest design works the best. none of the gucci companies do business beyond consumer. phil seaberger's cans are hands down the best full auto cans you can buy, his design maybe simple compared to the above, but are combat proven and last in the harshest environments. joe gaddini built reed knights suppressors and his designs were also simple but reliable, which is why they became the NATO standard. he then left kac to work with his company swr building suppressors, then sold it after making millions on the grip-pod. lynn mcwilliams and phil dater's designs are also simple but tried and true. i know dater was offered a redesign a few years ago and passed. it's because of these simple designs that these industry giants are still in business and have contracts. knights, tactical ops, bowers, jet, all the same. yankee hill is another, even though they're a newer manufacturer. surefire too.

for years the industry has tried to revolutionize the product to be quieter and run cleaner, but have yet to. the only change is cosmetic and higher prices. the major development in the last decade was the quick release mount which reed knight had the upper hand on first. the only problem with his clamp on style was that sometimes cans would fly downrange. i like where surefire's going in developing smaller, short, stubbies for 556 and down, which is something i've wanted for years. the smaller the better in my book. silencerco's philosophy is obviously the bigger the better and yet, they're no quieter.

of course this is all just my opinion based from actual field use, not google or reading books. ok, bring on the hate.

[Jakeiscrazy]

3. One of the issues with suppressing an AR (assuming DI, not a piston) is the blow back. Good AR cans are optimized to reduce the back pressure without impacting cycling reliability. However, most .308 cans are not. It may look like the .308 can is just a larger/longer tube and has more baffles with a bigger hole, but there's actually a lot more to it to make them work as well as they do.

Good example of that:

Noveske is now making a "Switch Block" just for this:
http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=20373

[pedal_pusher]

the switch block is not new.

[gunderwood]

i personally think aac is junk...only because i owned one that didn't last a year, and when i call them, i don't want hear that they supply the worlds most elite military/government cause that's a bunch of bs.

What happened to it? AAC generally has a good warranty if it's a manufacturing defect, but historically customer service hasn't been their strong point. That's suppose to have changed, but I personally can't attest to it either way as all of mine have been flawless. However, individual experiences aren't enough to prove a product is junk or otherwise. On aggregate AACs are generally considered very well built cans, but like all products they have good points and bad points. It depends on what you value.

As a side note, even the best QC/QA can't guarantee that there are no lemons. Now if you got a lemon and they wouldn't stand behind it or you just didn't like how they did so, then by all means take your money where ever you wish.

aac are great marketers, it's gucci unnecessary technology to fool people who don't know better into spending more then they should...their cans are no better/quieter then awc's.

...

in the world of suppressors, the simplest design works the best. none of the gucci companies do business beyond consumer.

Those two statements don't quite jive, particularly with your previous comment about AAC customer service. AAC's poor customer service is generally attributed to their focus on military markets and not civilian, but you say AAC is "gucci" and such companies don't do business beyond the consumer. So which is it? Is AAC a "gucci" company who only sells marketing or are they a military focused company who just sells to civilians to help manufacturing/production flows?

Regardless if you meant it or not, you're coming off as someone who's ranting about an irrational hatred of AAC.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of AACs marketing. The whole tattoo, bad boy image doesn't do anything to sell them to me. Later, I'll tell you why I choose the AACs I have.

aac are great marketers, it's gucci unnecessary technology to fool people who don't know better into spending more then they should...their cans are no better/quieter then awc's. i used to like awc until lynn mcwilliams passing and his wife retiring, then leaving the company to be run by their neighbors kid... whose also another 'talker'. i would put silencerco in the same category.

in the world of suppressors, the simplest design works the best. none of the gucci companies do business beyond consumer.

So is it "gucci" or unnecessary? Is it all marketing fad or simply not needed for the civilian market place? I'll give you that there may be valid points that you don't need a can as well built as AACs or that frequency shifting isn't needed for the civilian market, but if that's what people want to buy why should you care?

Building a simple device which is basically nothing more than an expansion chamber isn't hard. An empty 2-liter soda bottle will do just fine in most cases. However, modern suppressor design has gotten to the point of computational fluid dynamic modeling, finite element modeling, etc. You aren't going to get huge gains from those techniques because most of the sound is eliminated by simply containing it so the expansion time is lengthened and cooling it. As the old saying goes, you get an 80% solution for 20% of the work, but the last 20% of the solution will take 80% of the effort. For most of the civilian market that's more than adequate and as proof of that point I'd note the large number of suppressor companies doing just that.

Furthermore, once you reach hearing safe levels of sound reduction, additional dB reduction isn't all that useful because human hearing works on a log scale anyways and secondary-plus noise sources become dominate. I.e. at some point a suppressed AR is going to be louder than an suppressed bolt no matter how good you make the can on the AR. Thus, chasing an artificial dB rating is folly. That's where the advanced techniques come into play. You can shift the frequency to it sounds less like gun fire, or into ranges humans hear poorly in or not at all, use it to fool our direction finding capabilities, etc. All of those things are important in suppressor design and some (e.g. flash signature, etc.), but may be of limited or no value in certain markets. It's up to the buyer to decide what they value and purchasing accordingly.

Of course, just like recoil, suppressor tone qualities are subjective and vary wildly from person to person. However, there are plenty of examples where the can with the better dB rating sounds much louder than "lesser" cans.

for years the industry has tried to revolutionize the product to be quieter and run cleaner, but have yet to. the only change is cosmetic and higher prices.

Counter point: the military's M107 suppressor testing (http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2006smallarms/semick.pdf). It showed clearly the differences in sound and flash reduction, as well as the wildly varying impacts on recoil, etc. between the different designs. There are other such tests, but that's the one that came to mind first. It's ignorant to suggest they are all the same. Perhaps what you intended to say is that for what you think the civilian market should care about they are all the same to you?

the major development in the last decade was the quick release mount which reed knight had the upper hand on first. the only problem with his clamp on style was that sometimes cans would fly downrange. i like where surefire's going in developing smaller, short, stubbies for 556 and down, which is something i've wanted for years. the smaller the better in my book. silencerco's philosophy is obviously the bigger the better and yet, they're no quieter.

Yes, not all QDs are created equal. They each have strengths and weaknesses, just like the various suppressor designs. I too am a fan of the smaller cans on ARs, but more than Surefire is making them now. Certainly they deserve the credit for making them popular.

of course this is all just my opinion based from actual field use, not google or reading books. ok, bring on the hate.

Thankfully I am well educated and have field experience because both are important. There are plenty of stories where the engineer's got it wrong on paper only to be corrected by the field, but there are just as many where the field keeps Fing up stuff because they learned to do it wrong and are too stubborn to learn otherwise.

[gunderwood]

So, why did I choose AAC for my latest can acquisitions? I personally think that AAC has one of the best compromise designs going. Simply put, there is no design which doesn't have some trade off to it. If anyone tells you otherwise, their either lying or ignorant. Engineering really is the study of compromises. I.e. if there really were only one way to do it and it had all the advantages we'd just build that and call it quits.

In no particular order:

1. I like AACs construction techniques and materials. You could argue that you don't need a fully wielded core (and that is probably true for most uses), but you can't argue that it's not a superior way of wielding the baffles. Of course, nothing is free and that method can cause servicing issues as those baffles are basically never coming out...but making sure they never come out is the whole point.

I also like the materials they use: Inconel, Grade 5/9 Ti, and SS316 are all good stuff if used properly. Granted, just like the wielding, using those high grade alloys do raise the cost (not just raw materials, but working with them becomes more difficult... e.g. ask a machinist about Inconel!). There are a few other companies who use similar materials, but most won't tell you exactly what they are. "It's Ti man and all Ti is good stuff!" BS or ignorance, your call and no your cheap Home Depot bolts are nothing like a high quality Grade 8 hardware...http://www.boltdepot.com/fastener-infor ... Chart.aspx

You could argue that I and others don't need those things and you'd probably be correct. However, we want them and someone is willing to build them. You might not see the value, but it's my money and I'll do what I please with it. It's fact that those techniques and materials (which isn't limited to AAC, but precious few go as far as they do) are superior. It's mostly subjective in determining if you need them or not.

2. I like AACs high tooth count QDs better than the competitions. They aren't perfect, but they are a good compromise IMHO. The most solid and stable is probably Surefire's, but I'm looking for more than just that. What if I want to shoot it unsuppressed? Obviously then the design of the brake/hider matters as the QD is more than just a mount point. Etc. The weakest point of AACs QD design use to be the mechanical dead-space between teeth (bad for accuracy), but they've mostly addressed that with the finer teeth. Now it's probably just the cost of Inconel brakes/hiders, the ratchet noise when you attach it, and it's a bit harder to remove than the competitors. I'm splitting hairs here, but I'd rather have a QD system that is nearly tops in all categories than one which has really strong points, but than fails spectacularly (e.g. sending the can down range). It's the compromise I like best, YMMV.

3. Flash reduction in addition to sound. You'd be surprised how poorly some cans perform with night vision. Do I need that right now? Nope, but prices keep falling so I expect to soon and these are basically lifetime buys.

4. Sound tone, not just dB reduction. Certainly AAC hasn't cornered the market here, but they consistently rank among the best tones I've heard across the board and in various tests I can find (e.g Silencer Research). Again, it's subjective so I'll grant you that, but their Ti cans have a lot less ringing than some competitors I've heard. YMMV.

Price is a concern, but it's way down the list. I'm a cry once kind of guy.

[chrismartin]

aac are great marketers, it's gucci unnecessary technology to fool people who don't know better into spending more then they should... surefire too.

So you think that AAC goads people into spending more money than they should and then you recommend/like KAC, and Surefire? Both of those are more expensive (and louder) than similar models of AAC silencers, yet the AAC models are built just as tough (or even more-so in some cases.)

Aside from your opinion, the fact is that AAC has some of the best silencers on the market by any measure. They are not unreasonably priced, they are made of high quality materials and have great mounting systems. I have never had an issue with their customer service and they have always been a great group of folks from my experiences with them.

I would like you to point out which technology from AAC you consider Gucci and why.

Also, you stated:

"...whose also another 'talker'. i would put silencerco in the same category. "

I'm trying to figure out what category you are putting SilencerCo in. The "talker" category or what?

for years the industry has tried to revolutionize the product to be quieter and run cleaner, but have yet to.

I disagree. 5.56 silencers have gotten quieter, as have .22 silencers and .45ACP silencers.
There are two .45 silencers (AAC and SilencerCo) that are both well under 140Db now (dry). .22 silencers are quieter and you can take them apart and clean them. 9mm silencers have improved as well both in serviceability and quietness.

[gunderwood]

for years the industry has tried to revolutionize the product to be quieter and run cleaner, but have yet to.

I disagree. 5.56 silencers have gotten quieter, as have .22 silencers and .45ACP silencers.
There are two .45 silencers (AAC and SilencerCo) that are both well under 140Db now (dry). .22 silencers are quieter and you can take them apart and clean them. 9mm silencers have improved as well both in serviceability and quietness.

More good counter points. Real hearing safe, dry, .45ACP silencers are a relatively new thing. Something about that large ~0.5" hole in the end of the can, eh? Even if they didn't get "quieter" (fewer dB), they did get smaller/lighter.

[chrismartin]

More good counter points. Real hearing safe, dry, .45ACP silencers are a relatively new thing. Something about that large ~0.5" hole in the end of the can, eh? Even if they didn't get "quieter" (fewer dB), they did get smaller/lighter.

Also, from his post above:

silencerco's philosophy is obviously the bigger the better and yet, they're no quieter.

Which is incorrect, completely. The Osprey silencer line is eccentric to allow for a greater volume and to not have to obscure the sights as much. It has a novel indexing system and does what it is supposed to do. It also ended up being quieter than any other .45ACP silencer on the marked, period. It and the AAC TiRANT are the only 45 silencers worth considering right now. The osprey is not "bigger is better" at all. It's slightly large-ish, but still allows lower sights. That's a good thing. ALso, their .22sparrow is tiny and very quiet.
SilencerCo also forced AAC to drop their price on the TiRant (Along with a large TiRant order that happened) due to the lower cost of the Osprey.

[pedal_pusher]

It also ended up being quieter than any other .45ACP silencer on the marked, period...

how do you know, did AAC tell you or did you read it on another forum? that's a laughable statement. chris, sorry but...

[pedal_pusher]

you consumers are killing me!! gunder i am happy you like your ACC's.. but taking your 22 can out a couple times a mouth when the weather suits and plinking 2 mags doesn't qualify you to know anything.

yeah yeah yeah you read military 'controlled environment' trials, which tells only half the story. lots of things trial well but fail in real world. but look, i do agree that 50 and 338 lapua cans have seen major development in the last few years on flash and sound suppression, but that's due to heavy push from military clients that normally only care about flash suppression vs. consumers on sound.

i know surefire isn't the sole manufacturer of stubbie cans, lots of guys have offered them for the last 20 years but none have made them as well as surefire. i do really like surefire, but that's for a few reasons beyond suppressors or lights. i also like reed and trey knight, phil seaberger, the late lynn mcwilliams (despite his eccentrics) and a handful of others whom i've dealt with longer then aac's been in business. as far as i'm concerned, i gave aac a chance and wasn't impressed.

i don't understand why AAC can't be both gucci and unnecessary... (assuming your married) if your wife asked you to buy a $3000 gucci purse over whatever she carriers now, could you justify buying it? if only for the name? or because it's fashionably trendy? is it significantly better? i think your thoughts on that are the same as mine for aac. it's a personal opinion, deal with it.

i guess i don't respect aac because they don't have their own baffle design, they originally stole someone elses, who when learned of it didn't get mad and sue, instead went over and helped them make one of their own. so they're not true r&d guys like everyone else in the industry, with them it's always been cosmetically cool looking 'stealthy' cans, lifted custom trucks, maxim girls, t-shirts and stickers.

[pedal_pusher]

It also ended up being quieter than any other .45ACP silencer on the marked, period...

how do you know, did AAC tell you or did you read it on another forum? that's a laughable statement. chris, sorry but...

correction, not AAC...SILENCERCO!!! my bad.