View Full Version : Daniel Defense Superior Suppression Device
snakedoctor
06-23-12, 11:16
For sale here: http://www.brownells.com/.aspx/pid=54486/Product/AR-15-M16-SUPERIOR-SUPPRESSION-DEVICE
Just wondering if anyone's running one of these or has tried one out yet. Please give us a report....
When they say 'supression' they mean flash not sound.
Pic from Brownelle's:
http://www.brownells.com/userdocs/products/p_100009936_2.jpg
snakedoctor
06-23-12, 12:06
When they say 'supression' they mean flash not sound.
Pic from Brownelle's:
http://www.brownells.com/userdocs/products/p_100009936_2.jpg
I know its not a Sound Suppressor.
Yes, I understand that, but the thread title can certainly lead one to believe sound supressor is the topic.
polymorpheous
06-23-12, 13:25
The product is named the "Superior Suppression Device".
Some call them flash hiders, others call them flash suppressors.
:shrug:
Just trying to save someone a click if they thought the link was to a sound supressor that got dropped into the wrong forum subection like a pile of other new threads every day.
'Suppression device' is as informative as 'round thing' for all the info the title offered.
SomeOtherGuy
06-23-12, 13:34
:shrug:
'Suppression device' is as informative as 'round thing' for all the info the title offered.
I've always thought of the AC-130 as a superior suppression device.
Maybe DD is branching out?
jdavis6576
06-23-12, 16:25
I recently purchased one, will try it out tomorrow in a carbine class. It has replaced, at least temporarily, a BattleComp 1.0. I still have a BC on one of my other carbines but wanted to check this out as the BC is a flame thrower. I called DD before purchasing and they said it should reduce flash better than a BC while providing more comp characteristics than an A2 birdcage. For the money, it was worth the risk. If I don't like it I can reinstall either my BC or a Smith Vortex I have in the parts bin.
I won't be able to learn a great deal on the flash suppression front tomorrow as there isn't any night shooting planned but hopefully I'll be able to evaluate the comp characteristics. I'll be taking a back-up rifle with the BC so I may shoot them interchangeably and see if I notice any difference between the BC and the DD SSD.
Guns-up.50
06-23-12, 20:39
I recently purchased one, will try it out tomorrow in a carbine class. It has replaced, at least temporarily, a BattleComp 1.0. I still have a BC on one of my other carbines but wanted to check this out as the BC is a flame thrower. I called DD before purchasing and they said it should reduce flash better than a BC while providing more comp characteristics than an A2 birdcage. For the money, it was worth the risk. If I don't like it I can reinstall either my BC or a Smith Vortex I have in the parts bin.
I won't be able to learn a great deal on the flash suppression front tomorrow as there isn't any night shooting planned but hopefully I'll be able to evaluate the comp characteristics. I'll be taking a back-up rifle with the BC so I may shoot them interchangeably and see if I notice any difference between the BC and the DD SSD.
well at least the guys next to you will like it better than the bc
Looks like it could be interesting, especially if it will give good flash supression and a little bit of compensation on recoil. Might be a good thing to try out especially with the 55 dollar price point. Could be a good go between something like a FSC556 and a pure flash supression device.
hotrodder636
06-24-12, 06:51
I've always thought of the AC-130 as a superior suppression device.
Maybe DD is branching out?
LOL! :lol:
Was looking to purchase one of these also. Jdavis6575 how did it work for you I the Carbine class?
jdavis6576
06-26-12, 14:20
I shot approximately 400 rounds through this Sunday. I'm quite happy with it; I didn't notice any increased recoil over the BattleComp I used previously and no one on the line was complaining about the concussion. Of course, several guys were running full blown brakes so that may have provided me with some cover. The class ended before 6 p.m. so I can't comment on flash suppression but the recoil characteristics were better than a Smith Vortex I've run in the past. YMMV.
There will be a Battle Comp 1.0 for sale on the EE soon...
SomeOtherGuy
06-26-12, 14:29
I shot approximately 400 rounds through this Sunday. I'm quite happy with it; I didn't notice any increased recoil over the BattleComp I used previously *** the recoil characteristics were better than a Smith Vortex I've run in the past. YMMV.
Interesting. What does the device look like inside - is it just a big empty cylinder like a Phantom, but with holes instead of slots? Or something more complex?
It looks a little like the Belgian FAL flash hider, from what little I can tell in the stock photo.
I shot approximately 400 rounds through this Sunday. I'm quite happy with it; I didn't notice any increased recoil over the BattleComp I used previously and no one on the line was complaining about the concussion. Of course, several guys were running full blown brakes so that may have provided me with some cover. The class ended before 6 p.m. so I can't comment on flash suppression but the recoil characteristics were better than a Smith Vortex I've run in the past. YMMV.
There will be a Battle Comp 1.0 for sale on the EE soon...
and the new FOTY has been born.
I've always thought of the AC-130 as a superior suppression device.
I like the way you think.
Forgive this question in the middle of this thread. But I have been looking at these also. Why is it that these don't need to be timed while others do? Is it just the inside of their layout that determines this?
Inkslinger
06-27-12, 20:19
Since this is a flash suppressor it will vent the muzzle blast evenly in multiple directions. A brake vents blast in specific directions to control muzzle rise. Thus requiring it to be time correctly to optimize these properties.
ac130usnsr
06-27-12, 22:40
I've always thought of the AC-130 as a superior suppression device.
Maybe DD is branching out?
It is. ;)
SomeOtherGuy
06-27-12, 23:32
Since this is a flash suppressor it will vent the muzzle blast evenly in multiple directions. A brake vents blast in specific directions to control muzzle rise. Thus requiring it to be time correctly to optimize these properties.
I disagree on these blanket statements. Some brakes are basically non-directional - like common hunting rifle brakes - and many flash suppressors require timing (the A2, for one). I would say:
flash suppressor - the primary purpose is to reduce flash. Usually has tines or slots. Usually has no effect on recoil, may or may not affect muzzle rise.*
compensator - not a consistently used term, but I would define it as something intended to control muzzle rise, which may or may not affect recoil or flash
brake - anything called a brake should reduce recoil significantly. Many also reduce muzzle rise by separate ports or asymmetrical shape, but not all. Usually increases flash, few reduce flash.
Note: muzzle rise is a result of recoil acting on a fulcrum below the bore centerline. Anything that reduces recoil will, if all else is equal, reduce muzzle rise. But many brakes include top ports intended to help force the muzzle down. These can be helpful, but if they are excessive can push the muzzle below your point of aim and be counterproductive. This will vary depending on your technique - if you have the buttstock firmly in your shoulder pocket you already have good control of muzzle rise, although the compensation effect of something like an A2 or FSC-556 will probably be helpful. But something that adds a lot of downward force is more likely to cause a problem. I've tested a Nordic Components brake that pushes the muzzle well below my line of sight when mounted on a 16" midlength and using my normal technique. For someone with different technique it might be just perfect.
* yesterday I was testing some devices back to back with each other on the same rifle, and out of curiousity I tried the A2 flash hider in its normal timing and then rotated upside down (slots down). I confirmed what people have stated here - the A2 has a significant effect to reduce muzzle rise when timed properly, and will send the muzzle very high when used upside down. This is free and easy to try for anyone who is skeptical that the A2 has a compensating effect.
Can we get a update how the DD 'Suppression device' is working out???
ColtSeavers
01-10-13, 00:10
Can we get a update how the DD 'Suppression device' is working out???
Agreed, very curious for an update as well as I am very tempted to get one myself.
bigredneck61088
01-10-13, 16:31
Also curious.. .
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
Inkslinger
01-10-13, 18:07
Considering this thread is almost 7 months old...I would imagine it's not a game changer.
Agreed - this will probably just seem confusing now that DD has their ISR on the way.
ColtSeavers
01-11-13, 14:59
this will probably just seem confusing now that DD has their ISR on the way.
How so? DD's superior suppression device is a muzzle device while DD's Internally Suppressed Rifle is an actual rifle (or at least barrel/upper).
People just want an update on whether Daniel Defense's superior suppression device actually works better than say an A2 birdcage style flash suppressor or hider and if it also acts as a brake or compensator (or if it even works at doing anything at all) from those that already have them, regardless of whether it's 'game changing' or not.
Is that not the purpose of this board?
Andrew Jackson
01-11-13, 15:02
Ha, you got me. I was thinking DD was starting to make silencers/suppressors.
I'd bet they would be sweet if they did....
Burgh n'at
01-11-13, 17:29
I ordered one with the Superior Suppression Device. Wish I could give you some details on performance, but I am still waiting for the damn thing to ship. Ordered my custom build 12/21.
I ordered one with the Superior Suppression Device. Wish I could give you some details on performance, but I am still waiting for the damn thing to ship. Ordered my custom build 12/21.
I ordered mine same day and it just arrived at my FFL today. Yours should be VERY close.
ColtSeavers
02-08-13, 13:00
Still curious if hopefully anyone's been able to do a comparison or review of any kind and would like to share.
Another revival to see if any information is available on this muzzle device. Searches far and wide returning little, which may say it all.
DD notes the SSD reduces flash and climb, but technically so does their standard flash hider. What isn't known is by how much more (if any) the SSD reduces flash and climb, and at what deficit, i.e., increased weight, noise, etc...
Anyone got the goods?
I tried one out. It didn't do a very good job at flash suppression. If there was any reduction in felt recoil or muzzle climb I didn't notice it. I replaced it with the new one from BCM.
I've always thought of the AC-130 as a superior suppression device.
Maybe DD is branching out?
I concur that the AC-130 is a superior suppression device. The again so is a A-10 and AH-64. I haven't tried the DD offering. This is the first I've heard of it. I'm also interested in a report.
ColtSeavers
07-17-13, 12:08
Resurrection update: I ended up buying one for the hell of it and outside of excellent quality manufacture and finish, I noticed no real benefit over my A2 regarding either flash (at dusk) or recoil/muzzle flip. It has since been returned. I am going to give the Midwest Industries flash hider/comp a shot next.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.