View Full Version : New Surefire Micro/Mini Suppressors
Has anyone heard anything more about these? Performance/pricing?
I understand these add only 3.6 and 2.6 inches to the weapon length and 14 and 12 ounces in weight respectively - very interesting if they come in at the right price point.
http://militarytimes.com/blogs/gearscout/files/2009/10/Surefire-Shorty-and-Micro1-500x346.jpg
FromMyColdDeadHand
11-01-09, 15:09
It would be interesting to see the technology applied to handgun silencers too.
I got to check these out at AUSA a few weeks ago. The Micro is only to be used on a 14.5 in barrel (or longer), so don't get any crazy thoughts of tiny barrels and tiny cans, but performance is supposed to be terrific. I think cost is comparable to current pricing as well, but don't quote me.
SpartanArms
11-01-09, 16:47
zushwa,
Any word on when these new cans are supposed to be available? Also, do you know if they will utilize the current SF flash suppressor/muzzle devices or will they have new ones for these two new cans? Thanks.
zushwa,
Any word on when these new cans are supposed to be available? Also, do you know if they will utilize the current SF flash suppressor/muzzle devices or will they have new ones for these two new cans? Thanks.
I don't know the timeframe, but I'm 99% sure the attachment will be the same. I'm definitely out of my lane so let me do some checking and report back.
SWATcop556
11-02-09, 22:16
Both models pictured on 14.5+ barrels only?
The top one would ****ing rock in my 11.5! :cool:
Anyone know if these will be ears safe on a 14.5" or longer?
Jer, most 5.56 cans barely break the threshold for hearing safe to begin with. I'm making an assumption here, but I don't see any way that these cans would be.
For those that don't know, ADCO has been selling the Opss, Inc. M4-S (http://adcofirearms.com/itemdetails_.cfm?inventorynumber=3823) for a little while now. the price of $215 and the mounting system make it pretty attractive. Given Surefire's track record for pricing things I don't think their compact offerings are going to be even twice that, and probably more like at least 3x the price of the Ops.
Generally speaking, however, what I like about both brands of compact cans is that they work on existing mounting systems for the larger cans, in which case they become an option that the user could switch back and forth between.
decodeddiesel
11-05-09, 16:32
Is it me or do those "cans" look photochopped onto those barrels?
QuietShootr
11-05-09, 16:47
Jer, most 5.56 cans barely break the threshold for hearing safe to begin with. I'm making an assumption here, but I don't see any way that these cans would be.
For those that don't know, ADCO has been selling the Opss, Inc. M4-S (http://adcofirearms.com/itemdetails_.cfm?inventorynumber=3823) for a little while now. the price of $215 and the mounting system make it pretty attractive. Given Surefire's track record for pricing things I don't think their compact offerings are going to be even twice that, and probably more like at least 3x the price of the Ops.
Generally speaking, however, what I like about both brands of compact cans is that they work on existing mounting systems for the larger cans, in which case they become an option that the user could switch back and forth between.
Oh, I need one of those.
Anyone else used/have them? Got a link to a write up? I'd like to keep my 11.5" an SBR if you know what I mean... These look very interesting. Possible option vs a pig.
Has anyone heard anything more about these? Performance/pricing?
I understand these add only 3.6 and 2.6 inches to the weapon length and 14 and 12 ounces in weight respectively - very interesting if they come in at the right price point.
I'm curious as to the application of the one that I bolded. The full size SF can adds 3.75" and is 17 ozs. The full-size suppressor can be used down to a 11.5" barrel with a shortened gas block.
I'm curious as to the application of the one that I bolded. The full size SF can adds 3.75" and is 17 ozs. The full-size suppressor can be used down to a 11.5" barrel with a shortened gas block.
I don't think it mount over the barrel like the M4FA does.
I don't think it mount over the barrel like the M4FA does.
Even so, many recommend a 11.5" barrel as the shortest to maintain velocity. If you can use the full-size can with more sound suppression and doesn't add any more length or weight than the "mini" can, why would you choose the "mini" can?
Derek_Connor
11-15-09, 13:43
I hope Ron and Phil take surefire's new offering as flattering.
Even so, many recommend a 11.5" barrel as the shortest to maintain velocity. If you can use the full-size can with more sound suppression and doesn't add any more length or weight than the "mini" can, why would you choose the "mini" can?
I suppose it's more "mini" than the K can and meant for applications where a reflex can wouldn't work.
Here is a really poor review.
http://my350z.com/forum/firearms-and-hunting/463827-new-surefire-suppressors-tested-by-yours-truly.html
I call BS. From what I understand...this guy thinks these mini cans are "quieter" than what looks like a 12th, maybe 16th model OPS. I HIGHLY doubt that.
I also don't see anything on that table O' guns set up to run an OPS.
decodeddiesel
11-29-09, 09:20
I agree technique.
What's funny is that if you read the thread another seemingly knowledgeable fellow comes along and challenges/questions the validity of the OPs review, especially with no db reduction data. The OP then pulls out the horse shit "well you're not an operator, so you are a "range warrior" and don't know what you're talking about".
****ing weak.
ETA: it gets better, then the OP who is some sort of HSLD Government ninja insists there have been so many advances since the A2 flash hider that no one uses them in theater anymore. Nice.
I'll wait for a more impartial review with some technical data before forming any opinions. However, I thought the picture of the cans lined up was informative - especially seeing these new cans next to the 212.
One of the posts implied that AAC has some micro-sized cans on the way - perhaps this is the trend in suppressors for 2010...?
The Dumb Gun Collector
11-29-09, 11:16
Didn't Colt do this back in the 60s-70s with their original "commando" style SBRs? Didn't they have a flash suppressor that also reduced the sound signature so much the ATF broke out the red pen?
Colt did have a flash hider early on, IIRC it was on the 11.5in XM177 and it did offer some DB reduction.
But like rob_s said above, OPS has been offering the M4-S for a good while now...I think over a year, if not two. It goes for $215. You can put an M4-S on any size barrel.
The Surefires are meant for 14.5 and beyond and some places are saying they bring sound down at the ear to 141db. I think 141db is still on the verge "ouch" levels.
I'll agree that the pictures where informative. Thats why I linked it. But that dude was too funny. When I saw him holding up the 12th to the mini can, I couldn't help but laugh. It seemed like he thought that was the ONLY can OPS makes.
I hope to see more companies producing smaller cans...I like the concept!
LonghunterCO
11-29-09, 21:28
Here is a really poor review.
http://my350z.com/forum/firearms-and-hunting/463827-new-surefire-suppressors-tested-by-yours-truly.html
I call BS. From what I understand...this guy thinks these mini cans are "quieter" than what looks like a 12th, maybe 16th model OPS. I HIGHLY doubt that.
I also don't see anything on that table O' guns set up to run an OPS.
I think that you are flattering his post by calling it a review.
Holy wow... that's an incredible thread over there.
Not worth my joining to get involved, but wow.
Anyway, we've made a couple mini/micro suppressors and there are 2 main problems with the small form factor-
1. they are not anywhere near hearing safe.
2. they flash like crazy.
Since sound and flash are the 2 main purposes of a can, I don't see these as worth it in any way...
We'll have to wait for some real word tests. Suppressing the AR to hearing safe level isn't an easy thing at any rate...
Heard the Mini on a 16" barrel this weekend. Impressively quiet. I thought it was a .22LR.
I really don't see how these micro/mini cans would work. Or maybe this technology is way past my ability to comprehend
LonghunterCO
02-03-10, 19:47
I really don't see how these micro/mini cans would work. Or maybe this technology is way past my ability to comprehend
I agree. Maybe I don't really understand the baffles can help you get more efficiency out of the volume of the tube, but you are still limited by the volume of the tube. Greatly reduce the tubes volume and therefore limiting the amount of baffles you have in there and it seems hard to comprehend that this "K" would not be loud as hell.
Didn't want to start a new thread. Any updates anyone?
The only update I have heard is from Grant. He has one on his 10.5" and its TITS. I had originally heard that you could only run them on 14.5" guns or longer but Grant said they were GTG on the 10.5's. I'm sure if he runs into any problems he will post up.
The only update I have heard is from Grant. He has one on his 10.5" and its TITS. I had originally heard that you could only run them on 14.5" guns or longer but Grant said they were GTG on the 10.5's. I'm sure if he runs into any problems he will post up.
So you're saying it's ears safe on a 10.5" upper?
So you're saying it's ears safe on a 10.5" upper?
I don't know about that. It was originally posted you could only run them 14.5" barrels or longer. I assumed there was a mechanical reason for that and thats why I posted Grant is running his on a 10.5". Mechanically its safe from what he says but I don't know about ears safe. Its definately still gonna be queiter than nothing at all, especially in a residence or structure and thats what I'm loking for, something to knock the edge off for my teammates and still have a VERY short OAL.
Darin Reiss
04-26-10, 21:40
I don't know about that. It was originally posted you could only run them 14.5" barrels or longer. I assumed there was a mechanical reason for that and thats why I posted Grant is running his on a 10.5". Mechanically its safe from what he says but I don't know about ears safe. Its definately still gonna be queiter than nothing at all, especially in a residence or structure and thats what I'm loking for, something to knock the edge off for my teammates and still have a VERY short OAL.
I believe in Grant's post about his DD SBR build that sports this mini can, he notes the 10.5" Noveske N4 barrel has a custom gas port for suppressed only shooting. I take that to mean the gas port hole diameter is significantly smaller than on a regular 10.5" barrel and thus not "overpressuring" gas tube and abusing the gun.
Darin Reiss
FFL/SOT in Haysville, KS
Since sound and flash are the 2 main purposes of a can, I don't see these as worth it in any way...
And if they run half as dirty as a real silencer, the whole idea would be totally stupid.
BUT... gun idiots will buy anything miniture regardless of the useless nature of the item.... .380 pistols.. etc. :rolleyes:
And if they run half as dirty as a real silencer, the whole idea would be totally stupid.
BUT... gun idiots will buy anything miniture regardless of the useless nature of the item.... .380 pistols.. etc. :rolleyes:
Would rather have a .380 then nothing at all. Just like a .380 I think it will have it's place. Would I rather have a larger suppressor that has more sound reduction..yes but it will be at the expense of OAL and weight. I think they will have their place if they are priced fairly. Hopefully they will be a little cheaper considering less material to produce. Grant said they work better then you think they would so, but to each their own.
I believe in Grant's post about his DD SBR build that sports this mini can, he notes the 10.5" Noveske N4 barrel has a custom gas port for suppressed only shooting. I take that to mean the gas port hole diameter is significantly smaller than on a regular 10.5" barrel and thus not "overpressuring" gas tube and abusing the gun.
Darin Reiss
FFL/SOT in Haysville, KS
If I get one I will run it on my 10.5" Noveske switchblock, which on its suppressed setting will mimick running a smaller gas port all the time.
Would rather have a .380 then nothing at all. Just like a .380 I think it will have it's place. Would I rather have a larger suppressor that has more sound reduction..yes but it will be at the expense of OAL and weight. I think they will have their place if they are priced fairly. Hopefully they will be a little cheaper considering less material to produce. Grant said they work better then you think they would so, but to each their own.
True, these (and most firearms-related products) have their niche. if it works for you, go for it. If these are priced very close to their full-size counterparts, doesn't seem worth it to the average shooter.
PS- this is not about Surefire's minis only, it's more about all tiny rifle cans- To get hearing safe, you only add 1.5" and 3.1 oz... I don't see that impacting anything except your hearing. Given the hoops that CIV have to go through, I would ask why?
ALL THAT SAID, if you want one- do it! It's not like in the average day most of us NEED a quarter of the things we want. ;)
True, these (and most firearms-related products) have their niche. if it works for you, go for it. If these are priced very close to their full-size counterparts, doesn't seem worth it to the average shooter.
PS- this is not about Surefire's minis only, it's more about all tiny rifle cans- To get hearing safe, you only add 1.5" and 3.1 oz... I don't see that impacting anything except your hearing. Given the hoops that CIV have to go through, I would ask why?
ALL THAT SAID, if you want one- do it! It's not like in the average day most of us NEED a quarter of the things we want. ;)
Here is my comment from silencerresearch.com ( the topic was with regards to SBRs and these "mini" suppressors )
"I understand the want to keep it shorter, but I would still recommend a full length suppressor.
With a shorter suppressor model you can keep the overall length shorter, but there will be a significantly reduced signature suppression capability, both sound and flash wise.
I see the "mini" suppressors more useful on 14.5-16" barrels, where you want to minimize the added length and the suppressors will be capable of better suppression.
Take Care!
Tuukka Jokinen
Ase Utra sound suppressors"
Fireguy275
04-27-10, 18:25
Shot with a guy this weekend that ran a Mini for portions of the course (low light portions).
The micro did a good job at both flash and noise reduction. I can't remember is he was running a 10.5 or 12.5 upper.
Any can that requires me to wear ear pro is a complete waste IMO. :confused:
I'm a student of Grossman's On Combat and don't give a second thought to running an 11.5" unsupressed carbean for home defense.
But if people can find a reason to buy it, that's cool.
Any can that requires me to wear ear pro is a complete waste IMO. :confused:
Suppressed rifle fire without hearing protection is still dangerous.
Suppressed rifle fire without hearing protection is still dangerous.
Yep, what he said.
This idea of hearing safe 5.56 suppression is nice, but I have not seen it. Balancing out significant noise reduction, flash suppression with decreased weight, size and increased durability is what I am looking for. The claimed "virtually no change in POI" going from suppressed to un-suppressed is nice, but not as big of a consideration for me.
I think the Surefire Mini is big step towards optimizing that balance. It is pricey, but Grant offers the best Surefire suppressor pricing I've seen. Plus, Surefire has great support.
In my communications with the Surefire suppressor folks, they indicated they have expectations of the Mini model outselling the slightly larger "B" can. They also did not hold back in recommending the Mini for 10" barrels and said it had been extensively tested using short barrels and has proved its durability.
I have a SF Mini and am running it on my 10.5. It is a LITTLE louder than the SF K can (212), but not enough that the human ear can really pick up (at least not mine).
IMHO, a 11.5-10.5 with ANY can is not hearing safe for long periods of time. On top of owning SF cans, I have an AAC M4 MOD 8 and SCAR blackout and wouldn't shoot them without hearing protection either.
The mini SF can comes into its own if you want to kill flash, reduce noise, reduce weight and reduce size (OAL). To me, all these things are important on a weapon designed for CQB.
C4
http://www.gandrtactical.com/images/archive/GR%20Custom%20Builds/105_N4_DD_SBR.jpg
Jay Cunningham
04-28-10, 10:21
I looked on the website and I don't see the wording anymore that recommends a 16" or 14.5" barrel or whatever. have they removed that wording purposefully. are these little can rated for 10.3" and 11.5" barrels? Will they erode more quickly or be any more susceptible to baffle strikes, and if so will SF still warrant them on the shorter barrels?
I looked on the website and I don't see the wording anymore that recommends a 16" or 14.5" barrel or whatever. have they removed that wording purposefully. are these little can rated for 10.3" and 11.5" barrels? Will they erode more quickly or be any more susceptible to baffle strikes, and if so will SF still warrant them on the shorter barrels?
Correct (removed it). I asked SF specifically if it would void my warranty to run the mini on the my 10.5 and they said no.
IMHO, you always want to run some forme of muzzle break (like the MB556K) with a can. The reason is that it slows down the wear on the first baffle.
C4
you only add 1.5" and 3.1 oz...
I'm not sure what kind of shooting you normally do, but I can tell you that the location of that extra 3.1 oz. matters a whole lot at events I've attended or run. We get a LOT of guys that show up all enthusiastic about their new can that after only 3 hours of muscling it around on the end of the gun get real un-enamored right quick.
Now whether saving 3 oz. at that location is worth the trade-off in amount of reduced noise, I don't know. I can tell you that, personally, while I have zero interest in shooting with my Ops 15th model (or 12th, or 16th, or whatever the hell I have) I am very interested in at least trying an M4-S for 1/4 the price, 6 less oz. (17 for the 15th - 11 for the M4-2 = 6 oz. saved right where it matters most), and 2.5" less protrusion with only 1" of that protrusion being added to the OAL of the gun with mount.
Jay Cunningham
04-28-10, 10:41
IMHO, you always want to run some forme of muzzle break (like the MB556K) with a can. The reason is that it slows down the wear on the first baffle.
Is that really how it works?
There are technical differences between what a brake, a compensator, and a flash hider do (and even a "booster" or backpressure increaser for that matter) and many of the characteristics cross over.
I am by no means an expert in any way, but I thought the flash you see at a bare muzzle vs. the flash you see at a muzzle device that mitigates it has to do with the physics of breaking up and redirecting the gas... the same pressures/heat are still present, right?
I mean... if you have a bare muzzle stuck inside a can (like a Gemtech Piranha) you are saying the blast baffle will wear out faster than a barrel with a muzzle brake stuck inside a can?
...if you have a bare muzzle stuck inside a can (like a Gemtech Piranha) you are saying the blast baffle will wear out faster than a barrel with a muzzle brake stuck inside a can?
That is the prevailing wisdom, especially on SBR's because of the redirection of the unburned powder and gases. The brake is thought to act like an elementary "first baffle" that has no sound reduction properties.
Jay Cunningham
04-28-10, 10:50
That is the prevailing wisdom, especially on SBR's because of the redirection of the unburned powder and gases. The brake is thought to act like an elementary "first baffle" that has no sound reduction properties.
Wow, seems like in such a small volume it'd hardly matter... but as I said, I'm nowhere near an expert.
Are we talking seeing a difference over hundreds, thousands, or tens of thousands of rounds?
When Steve @ ADCO showed the abuse that his Ops Inc brake took, and relatively how nice the blast baffle looked for having several thousand rounds on it, it became clear that the Ops mount was taking the brunt of the unburned powder and accelerated gas.
According to Phil Dater, on AR15.com recently:
"At 10.5 inches, the gas pressure on exiting is 50% higher than the 14.5" and the powder has not burned nearly as completely as in a longer barrel. The result is a significantly higher velocity of partially burned powder particles (functioning like a plasma cutter) with significantly accelerated erosion of the blast baffle."
I'm guessing that anything that re-directs some portion of that powder will increase longevity at least by a somewhat noticeable amount. Especially by comparison with Steve's ADCO brake blast baffle picture comparisons.
I am also not an expert, but have followed these things very closely over the years.
When Steve @ ADCO showed the abuse that his Ops Inc brake took, and relatively how nice the blast baffle looked for having several thousand rounds on it, it became clear that the Ops mount was taking the brunt of the unburned powder and accelerated gas.
I recall those pictures as well. IIRC he has pictures of a can fired with a brake and a can fired with a FH mount and the difference was noticeable. Can't seem to find the thread/post/pics now though, here on on barf.
variablebinary
04-28-10, 11:08
I'm not sure what kind of shooting you normally do, but I can tell you that the location of that extra 3.1 oz. matters a whole lot at events I've attended or run. We get a LOT of guys that show up all enthusiastic about their new can that after only 3 hours of muscling it around on the end of the gun get real un-enamored right quick.
Gear queer burden :D
Is that really how it works?
There are technical differences between what a brake, a compensator, and a flash hider do (and even a "booster" or backpressure increaser for that matter) and many of the characteristics cross over.
Oh yeah brother! The the break acts as a first baffle reducing wear/tear on the can. I have seen SF suppressors with the same round count as mine, but the shooter only used the FS adaptor. The first baffle was eroding. Mine is perfect.
I am by no means an expert in any way, but I thought the flash you see at a bare muzzle vs. the flash you see at a muzzle device that mitigates it has to do with the physics of breaking up and redirecting the gas... the same pressures/heat are still present, right?
Right. The MB helps to break up the pressure/heat/etc.
I mean... if you have a bare muzzle stuck inside a can (like a Gemtech Piranha) you are saying the blast baffle will wear out faster than a barrel with a muzzle brake stuck inside a can?
From what I am told, yes, it will cause the first baffle to wear faster than if you used something to redirect the blast.
C4
I think this thread / pics tie into what you are referring to on the qd break:
http://www.silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=56771
I'm not sure what kind of shooting you normally do, but I can tell you that the location of that extra 3.1 oz. matters a whole lot at events I've attended or run. We get a LOT of guys that show up all enthusiastic about their new can that after only 3 hours of muscling it around on the end of the gun get real un-enamored right quick.
Now whether saving 3 oz. at that location is worth the trade-off in amount of reduced noise, I don't know. I can tell you that, personally, while I have zero interest in shooting with my Ops 15th model (or 12th, or 16th, or whatever the hell I have) I am very interested in at least trying an M4-S for 1/4 the price, 6 less oz. (17 for the 15th - 11 for the M4-2 = 6 oz. saved right where it matters most), and 2.5" less protrusion with only 1" of that protrusion being added to the OAL of the gun with mount.
Agreed on a lot of points Rob- and one needs to balance out the cost(weight/length/etc)/benefits of any equipment... my point is the 3 oz with the benefit of the noise reduction IS worth it to some people, just as less weight and less sound performance IS worth it to others...
lugging an extra pound out at the end of a lever is going to be a compromise for some other benefit.
Definitely try out the M4-S and let us know, it should take the edge off. One thing that has going for it over the SF Mini is price... if the SF mini was 1/4 the price of it's "big brother" it would be a neat option.
RAM Engineer
04-28-10, 19:25
1. Wouldn't a muzzle brake be more susceptible to burning out the SIDE of the suppressor, as opposed to the first baffle?
2. A brake on an 11.5" WITHOUT a suppressor must be hell! I guess if you go that route, a suppressor isn't very optional.
Jay Cunningham
04-28-10, 19:42
1. Wouldn't a muzzle brake be more susceptible to burning out the SIDE of the suppressor, as opposed to the first baffle?
I was wondering the same thing.
1. Wouldn't a muzzle brake be more susceptible to burning out the SIDE of the suppressor, as opposed to the first baffle?
2. A brake on an 11.5" WITHOUT a suppressor must be hell! I guess if you go that route, a suppressor isn't very optional.
No as the walls are very thick.
Yes, SBR's are annoying no matter what is on the end of them. That is why I only shoot suppressed.
C4
1. Wouldn't a muzzle brake be more susceptible to burning out the SIDE of the suppressor, as opposed to the first baffle?
2. A brake on an 11.5" WITHOUT a suppressor must be hell! I guess if you go that route, a suppressor isn't very optional.
1. No, not at all... what it protects the can from is the direct "sandblasting" of unburnt powder... the stuff that comes straight out the muzzle... once it changes direction (from hitting a baffle) it doesn't have much eroding power left. The hot gasses are easily contained by the walls of the can.
2. not great! On a 10.5-11.5 with a good brake, you feel the blast wrap around your face.
RetreatHell
04-29-10, 00:55
1. No, not at all... what it protects the can from is the direct "sandblasting" of unburnt powder... the stuff that comes straight out the muzzle... once it changes direction (from hitting a baffle) it doesn't have much eroding power left. The hot gasses are easily contained by the walls of the can.
Would that also equate to less muzzle flash on the first round pop (mainly with SBRs, as I've noticed once you go past 14.5" the first round pop doesn't have hardly any more flash then the following rounds, neither of which anyone down range would see without NODs)?
Grant- Got any more pics of your new mini can?:D Or did you start a thread about it with more pics that I missed?
Would that also equate to less muzzle flash on the first round pop (mainly with SBRs, as I've noticed once you go past 14.5" the first round pop doesn't have hardly any more flash then the following rounds, neither of which anyone down range would see without NODs)?
Nothing scientific, but in my experience, the muzzle device used inside the can has no effect on sound or first round pop/first round flash.
With longer barrels, more of the powder burns reducing flash no matter what is on the end of the barrel.
Would that also equate to less muzzle flash on the first round pop (mainly with SBRs, as I've noticed once you go past 14.5" the first round pop doesn't have hardly any more flash then the following rounds, neither of which anyone down range would see without NODs)?
Grant- Got any more pics of your new mini can?:D Or did you start a thread about it with more pics that I missed?
These are all the pics I have currently: https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=50955
C4
These are all the pics I have currently: https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=50955
C4
PS- awesome clean setup Grant!
Voodoochild
04-30-10, 17:19
How would these offerings from SF compare to the mini can from OPS INC?
Sorry for the necropost... but the M4S will do what the micro does at a fraction of the price.
Sorry for the necropost... but the M4S will do what the micro does at a fraction of the price.
How does the M4S do with Point of Impact Shifts??
C4
How does the M4S do with Point of Impact Shifts??
C4
I am curious about this as well.
How does the SF Micro do with POI shifts?
Thanks
Didn't Colt do this back in the 60s-70s with their original "commando" style SBRs? Didn't they have a flash suppressor that also reduced the sound signature so much the ATF broke out the red pen?
When the 639's became available (ultimately because of Jimmy Carter's lack of support for the Shah of Iran) the ATF determined the moderator reduced the sound signature approximately 1.5db and in their infinite wisdom classified it as a sound suppressor.
Many had the moderator removed to make it a one transfer tax weapon. Others that kept them were serial numbered with a IRS serial number. Sometimes it was the same as the 639's serial number. Other times it was a number I assume to be an ongoing number system the ATF had in place at the time. Who knows.
I am curious about this as well.
How does the SF Micro do with POI shifts?
Thanks
My sampling of ONE did not have any.
C4
How does the M4S do with Point of Impact Shifts??
C4
Per my buddy who has everything OPS makes, it has none that you can notice with a low magnification optic.
Per my buddy who has everything OPS makes, it has none that you can notice with a low magnification optic.
Just so I am clear, you are telling the forum members that one brand will do something better than another brand, but you own neither of them?
C4
Just so I am clear, you are telling the forum members that one brand will do something better than another brand, but you own neither of them?
C4
Sounds like it, but does it really matter if the can stays on all the time? If I had one of these mini cans I doubt that I'd be shooting it much without the can.
Sounds like it, but does it really matter if the can stays on all the time? If I had one of these mini cans I doubt that I'd be shooting it much without the can.
If you ONLY shoot with the can on, then it really does not matter what you buy.
As someone that shoots 98% of the time with my can on, I STILL take it off and shoot certain drills and or demo's with it to show the lack of POI shift.
C4
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.