Originally Posted by
Fireman1291
I'll quote myself to that response
"Well...actually....
When you....... utilized the piston design from Silencerco you inadvertently copied the Osprey cam grooves that are un-needed for anything but the Osprey suppressor line. You see, the only reason to have those grooves is so the three cam tabs have a place to slide into and lock to the piston when you install the cam/piston assembly into the blast chamber on the Osprey.
The cam ring is a two piece part. The first section has tabs that slide into the aforementioned grooves on the piston and the second half of the cam rotates upon it with 360deg knurling on the OD surface of the ring. This is what interfaces with the cam lever tooth. This is how you orient the eccentric suppressor correctly.
As far as manufacturing costs, it has nothing to do with the time the machine takes to cut three lines into the OD of the piston. The reason is quite the opposite. Silencerco uses this same piston design across the entire suppressor lineup to save time/cost. This way they have one production cycle machining one specific type of piston. Not two, one with grooves for the Osprey and one without for the Octane line. (You know, the suppressor Henry Graham designed at SWR) As such they are very aware of the minimal blowback associated with the Octane and the grooved pistons. Hence why there is still only one piston version available.
I have personally viewed grooved and non-grooved pistons under high speed footage on a wet can (visual aid/steam leaking) and you can clearly see gas escaping through the rear of the suppressor. The O-ring is NOT there to keep anything from rotating...it's simply there to help with gas seal and is standard on any suppressor booster assembly from any manufacturer. So it seems like the only one confusing the market base is you. The claim of less back pressure by Rugged is not a lie, it's true. Albeit the difference is small, it's still there.
Now I'm not here to start a forum war. I've just noticed lately you have gone on a campaign to discredit this particular manufacturer and this comment finally made me step in. The photoshop jabbing and belt fed bashing is getting old. One could spend days photoshopping jokes with your company and a xerox machine but to what end? The truth is that every company copies traits from the other. Since the beginning of the suppressor growth in 2009 it has been that way. The mounts, baffles, tube and construction all mimic the next. Why? Because the tech is advancing so rapidly, nobody can keep up. And I don't blame you, nor Rugged, or anyone else for using the same piston design as Silencerco! It's great, as you gave your customers the ability to have cross compatibility with their existing piston collection. Smart move your part and theirs.
I know you and I have never met and hope you take this harsh constructive criticism the right way. My biggest advice would be to stop the cyber bully BS man. You make a great product and should let that speak for itself! Your machining, materials and overall fit and finish are tops. You have nothing to prove. And I would hate for you to follow the "Too proud to play nice with others" act that AAC had going on. It will turn off potential customers and already has in some of the other threads. The finger pointing just looks unprofessional and as someone who started a suppressor company from the group up I'm sure you see yourself as a professional.
Before I go, I'll add that I have no dog in this fight. I'm a 3rd party reviewer and contemplated very hard on even writing this as I like to remain neutral. I'm very familiar with this forum and how quick the ban hammer can strike. I only hope you take my advice. There is plenty of room in the suppressor market for you, SiCo, DeadAir, Rugged, Surefire, etc etc.
Take care and Happy New Year.
-NFA Review