Otter Creek Polonium 556 can ?

My buddy just got a Otter Creek Polonium 556 can. Some others told him it was the cats meow in new 556 hotness. Anyone with experience with this can. He is going to try on his Barrett Rec7 and Colt 6920 (both 16inch guns) and see where he wants it most. Has one can already so just looking for the best home.

Any feedback appreciated.

PB

According to pew science, it has excellent suppression, but very high back pressure.

So it may not be best in a mixed use application, but could do quite well in a dedicated suppressed role with a tuned down gas port.

We may shoot it this weekend. High back pressure is a bummer. If we get to shoot it, we'll see if it seems gassy.

He is going to try it on his Rec7 and should be able to gas it down. But we’ll keep you posted.

PB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clint

According to pew science, it has excellent suppression, but very high back pressure.

So it may not be best in a mixed use application, but could do quite well in a dedicated suppressed role with a tuned down gas port.

---

Seeing is believing on the difference a tuned down gas port makes. Sound at the ear (not to mention gas to the face) is noticeably mitigated with a 0.056 gas tube on an 11.5 with a Turbo K as compared to the standard (reduced) Sionics gas port.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by georgeib

Seeing is believing on the difference a tuned down gas port makes. Sound at the ear (not to mention gas to the face) is noticeably mitigated with a 0.056 gas tube on an 11.5 with a Turbo K as compared to the standard (reduced) Sionics gas port.

---

Yeah. The Sionics RGP barrel is gassed right for NO suppresser. That's how retarded the majority of the AR Mfg industry is.

I have one being held hostage by the AFT currently. As Clint said, it does a great job at sound and flash suppression, but at the cost of high back pressure. Mine will be going on a BRT 12.5" Optimum barrel with a green spring and A5H3 buffer. We'll see how it goes once the ATF deems me worthy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by georgeib

Seeing is believing on the difference a tuned down gas port makes. Sound at the ear (not to mention gas to the face) is noticeably mitigated with a 0.056 *do you mean .065?*gas tube on an 11.5 with a Turbo K as compared to the standard (reduced) Sionics gas port.

---

Yeah, we need to get Jay a severely choked down gun. Like a 11.5”-12.5” with a BRT 0.059” tube. I suspect that we would then find that loud, low backpressure cans are simply loud, although there still seems to be a balance point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1168

Yeah, we need to get Jay a severely choked down gun. Like a 11.5”-12.5” with a BRT 0.059” tube. I suspect that we would then find that loud, low backpressure cans are simply loud, although there still seems to be a balance point.

---

So, I did misremember a bit. The tube is 0.057 as marked, not 0.056. I was a little wary at first too, but it runs just fine. Gun is an 11.5 Sionics standard/reduced gas port with an A5H2, Sprinco Green, Sionics NP3 BCG, and a YHM Turbo K direct threaded. As I've stated in other posts, I do use a 75/25 mixture of Slip 2000 EWL 30 and Tetra Gun Oil along with the same mixture in grease, which is an incredibly slick combination unlike anything else I've seen. The gun has run flawlessly and ejects to 3 o'clock with M193 or M855, FWIW.

ETA: The standard gas port on the Sionics 11.5 is a 0.0625. Does not all feel undergassed, and runs Russian Vympel Golden Tiger even with an A5H2 unsuppressed.

I looked at the pew pew page. I wonder how my Sig cans would fair. I have DT and brake mounted 556 cans that seem to offer a decent balance of sound and back pressure. I think the larger girth cans help with both.

Anyone see any studies or test on Sig cans?

PB