Printable View
https://www.tntesales.com/xm-177-gau...der-phosphate/
https://www.tntesales.com/one-piece-...der-phosphate/
I've attached a picture of the conical inside version. Would this show any advantage over a straight wall ID 5.5" flash hider? I was thinking possibly more accuracy...
Attachment 69155
I posted this in the Vintage section but realized it really is just a general question. FH is 5.5" long but there are two options...
https://www.tntesales.com/xm-177-gau...der-phosphate/
One is a straight wall inside (tube that meets the bore) and then there is the one below which is a conical tapering interior. What benefit would one have over the other? I asked TNT and they said "weight" :rolleyes:
Attachment 69156
Well, an advantage is it looks like a suppressor for an XM177E2. It probably does not weigh any more than one of those either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stopsign32v
A disadvantage would be it will not reduce the over-pressure of a short barrel like the XM177E2 suppressor, and may not reduce flash to the same extent.
Maybe I read you wrong but if not, I want to clarify. These are the two flash hiders in question...Notice the drawing difference in them. Appearance and dimensions are identical. Only difference is the internal design.Quote:
Originally Posted by lysander
Attachment 69159Attachment 69160Attachment 69161Attachment 69162
If you understood the differences then I misunderstood you
This is the most Mickey Mouse shit ever but I drew some diagrams to explain my thoughts here. Technically wouldn't the conical FH be more accurate due to the gases being controlled in a better design and not just floating around in the chamber?
Attachment 69163Attachment 69164
My guess is the full diameter one might give you a slight boost in back pressure like the old Noveske Flaming pig. But the more turbulent gas release might result in more flash.
But I also wonder if the full diameter resign is just a newer production design to eliminate the step down design to save time/cost?
Maybe I should buy both and do a comparison at the range before pinning and welding. I'm mostly concerned with accuracy. I'll just get both and make a thread on my findings.
A muzzle device with an enclosed expansion chamber might be classed a suppressor by the ATF . . .
Or are you talking about something like this? It that case there wouldn't be much, if any difference, other than weight.
https://i.imgur.com/SKzW6mQ.png
The Griffin XM Linear Comp had a single baffle and is effective giving you back-pressure (for short barrels) and a little flash suppression.
https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFile...pg-2595050.JPG
A straight extension serves as a "Viz Mod" (visual modification) but really doesn't do much for you (functionally). They were all the rage in the 80s up to the '94 ban.
If it's not machined true coaxially it can make for larger groups (like a bad crown).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWXrrDAUYwU
What the Colt looks like inside (the Griffin looks like the external body on the right with no other baffling):
https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFile...pg-2595107.JPG
The AWC Hyperdyne was similar -- just a simple vented, closed tube:
https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFile...pg-2595112.JPG
All that. Which is why you don't see XM177 type flash hiders on current 10.3/11.5 SBRs unless you are building a clone. For the same space you could mount a SF mini and get actual suppression.Quote:
Originally Posted by sinister
Problem is I'm building a cloneQuote:
Originally Posted by SteyrAUG
Options:
1) By a wide margin. Find an over the barrel version you can get pinned to a 14.5” barrel.
2) Ask the manufacturer why they make two different designs and what they recommend for your needs.
Better do the testing on a pistol pistol lower...Quote:
Originally Posted by Stopsign32v
Todd's number 1 by a wide margin. There are nuances of course but I predict big flash and the thing is, the flash makes its own noise. So, if possible, don't give up velocity and replace it with more flash, more noise, and less reliability. Unless you want to also replicate ballistics for research purposes. but-- we've had old Olympic guns in class that had the long FH and they basically give the worst of all worlds.
Which one are you talking about? And who is Todd?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ned Christiansen
This number 1Quote:
Originally Posted by Todd.K
Again cloning it. I don't care much about flash or noise it will be a range toy. I am nervous about horrible accuracy though with a 5.5" FHQuote:
Originally Posted by Todd.K
With that #1 option it will look the same but give you another 150-200 FPS which some day you may be glad you had, plus your accuracy concerns are gone. There is a guy that specializes in the clone thang, bet he has the preferred combo whichever you choose, but I can't think of his company name just now. Charlie's Clones maybe?
Ah, in that case I'd go with the Griffin that sinister recommended.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stopsign32v
They aren't made anymoreQuote:
Originally Posted by SteyrAUG
https://nfatalk.org/forum/showthread.php?t=12761
Is it a true moderator or flash hider that looks like the moderator? A true moderator would require papers like a suppressor right?
Are you trying to “clone” short barrel ballistics and not just the look, or did I not describe it well?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stopsign32v
Because I’ve seen one done that way, and it looks just as close to original as any 16” OAL without a real moderator.
Straight, with as much clearance as possible.
You want the expanding bore gases to come out as symmetrically as possible, without kicking or tipping the bullet base and boat-tail in any particular direction, inducing bullet wobble about its axis -- why the National Match M14 flash suppressor was reamed out as opposed to tapered (kinda like in the diagram in your other thread).
Nez Rongero in Austin builds some of the most accurate custom M16 barrels in national match competition. He starts with a 30-caliber A2 compensator because they have a wider base for threading (5/8" rather than 1/2-inch) and he can bore out a wider internal diameter.
Example M14 flash suppressors -- standard on left, National Match on right:
https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFile...pg-2595738.JPG
That sucks. You can always go NFA with the real thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stopsign32v
https://www.suppressorsbyphoenix.com...ngth%20Carbine.
I actually understand it. There is period correct and it's not going to be a duty gun anyway. Also putting a forward threaded flash that sleeves over the barrel is kind of like putting a fake suppressor on a MP5.Quote:
Originally Posted by Todd.K
I just want a fun loosely built XM177 "clone". I like the clone game but not to the point of stressing over period correct parts vs repro. With that being said I also want to enjoy it at the range, so this one will have an A.R.M.S #2 on it with a Blood Diamond type optic because I much prefer optics over irons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Todd.K
I really hate the idea of fake anything be it a fake suppressor to hide a 16" barrel or a fake 5.5" flash hider to hide a 16" barrel, just not my personal cup of tea. I do not care at all about ballistics (not that SBR ballistics bother me as my favorite go to is my MK18) all I want to make sure is that accuracy is acceptable.
Good information Sinister! Thank you!
I get it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stopsign32v
I wanted a "CAR-15" like I was issued in the old days. My desire to hit stuff where I'm aiming is always a consideration.
... so I bastardized the concept and built the CAR-15 I wanted. A detachable A1 carry handle (eh, why not?); a stainless Roscoe mid-gas barrel; free-float rail; and the Griffin XM Linear Comp (because I want it).
1967-70, evolved to GWOT:
https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFile...PG-2596045.JPG
Nice stick! So Sinister what flash hider is that and how does it group with it? I'm sure I'm overthinking this but I always do.
It's the Griffin XM Comp.
It's an iron-sight carbine -- I've never shot it with a scope, nor past 350 yards. It hits E-type targets.
I'd like to run across one of those Griffin XM Comps
Threads merged.
BTW, here's an old, pretty detailed write up I did of the Griffin XM Linear comp when I was putting together my 'modernized' XM-look carbine:
http://www.militarymorons.com/weapons/ar.access6.html