Page 7 of 35 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 349

Thread: New Surefire SOCOM RC Suppressors

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    2,121
    Feedback Score
    112 (100%)
    For anyone interested in one of these. http://www.surefire.com/media/catalo...6-1-2-28_1.png

    They are currently in stock here. http://www.webersguns.com/3prong-fla...cturers_id=263
    Last edited by Biggy; 09-26-12 at 23:12.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    The big TX
    Posts
    392
    Feedback Score
    16 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by JoshNC View Post
    Thanks Garin, it is the SF3P-556-M14X1 LH adapter.


    http://www.surefire.com/sf3p-556-m14...ash-hider.html


    I just noticed the fine print on the right side of the page regarding it being a non-stocked minimum order item. I suppose the SF3P-762-M14X1 LH will work as well.
    Josh,
    The AUG version http://www.surefire.com/sf3p-556-aug-flash-hider.html seems to have the same restriction for minimum orders. As a side note, I didn't see anything mentioned on the new suppressors regarding minimum barrel lengths other than the Socom556-sb, which is designed for barrels less than 10 inches or unstable (unjacketed frabgibile, green) ammo. Are all the new versions ok to use on 10"+ inch barrels?

    Update: I spoke to a customer rep when I placed my order for a couple of flash hiders and the Sig 553/AUG adapters are not sold very often and require a minimum 200 unit order for production, unfortunately. Also, they don't really make many weapon specific adapters as I was inquiring about the updated hider for a Scar 17s. He told me the http://www.surefire.com/sf3p-762-5-8...ash-hider.html would fit the scar as they just go by threads now. If I recall correctly, the previous scar hider had 5/8-24 RH and the above version is LH thread. I hope Garin can chime in on whether this is still the correct version or not.
    Last edited by SPARTAN HOPLITE ARMS; 09-27-12 at 12:59.

    Leave the guns...bring the cannolis.
    Give me but one firm spot on which to stand and I will move the Earth. -Archimedes

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    165
    Feedback Score
    9 (100%)
    Garin, I decided to purchase the SOCOM762-MINI and had some questions.

    1- When do you think my class 3 dealer will have them?

    2- How will the SOCOM762-Mini fare with a 5.56 10.5 sbr?

    Thanks in advance for your contribution to the site.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,397
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by justlikeanyoneelse View Post
    Garin, I decided to purchase the SOCOM762-MINI and had some questions.

    1- When do you think my class 3 dealer will have them?

    2- How will the SOCOM762-Mini fare with a 5.56 10.5 sbr?

    Thanks in advance for your contribution to the site.
    Obviously not in a hurry huh?

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    alexandria va.
    Posts
    435
    Feedback Score
    20 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by justlikeanyoneelse View Post
    Garin, I decided to purchase the SOCOM762-MINI and had some questions.

    1- When do you think my class 3 dealer will have them?

    2- How will the SOCOM762-Mini fare with a 5.56 10.5 sbr?

    Thanks in advance for your contribution to the site.
    sounds like we're looking at the same suppressor for the same uses

    i've been holding off on ordering a 7.62 mini for the socom version, but the dark side is strong and it's telling me to just get the paperwork started on the 7.62 mini

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    165
    Feedback Score
    9 (100%)
    haha I know right, trying to hold out a bit more for the "improved" version is so tough...at least the ATF wait time is improving


    Quote Originally Posted by the_1iviper View Post
    sounds like we're looking at the same suppressor for the same uses

    i've been holding off on ordering a 7.62 mini for the socom version, but the dark side is strong and it's telling me to just get the paperwork started on the 7.62 mini

  7. #67
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    3,095
    Feedback Score
    7 (89%)
    Quote Originally Posted by WS6 View Post
    I watched this video, and while back-pressure I am sure is reduced, I saw several things in it that make me feel like this is evolutionary vs. revolutionary.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75gjY...ayer_embedded#!

    Observe at 3:20, you will see the shells ejecting well forward of where they normally do in most un-suppressed M4 style weapons, and then a few kick out to 3-4 o'clock.

    Okay, I know that the "wheel" and all that gets a fair amount of ragging on and is "unscientific". What matters is that the weapon cycles properly, forget where the casings land.


    With that in mind, watch very closely at 3:40. Note that the casing appears to eject at 4 o'clock. Now watch it several times, closer. You will see that it ejects so violently that it is first extracted, then slams into the shell-deflector, and is knocked forward into the front of the ejection port, and is then kicked back out of the chamber by the bolt-carrier to the 4 o'clock position. This could well have turned into a stove-pipe looking jam.

    The back-pressure just doesn't seem much less with this suppressor, to me, as the firearms in this video are obviously over-gassed. I am sure that Surefire has conducted full-auto testing and a rate reduction is shown, but I am guessing it is more academic, based on Surefire's promotional video.
    I saw that as well but I' going to say its the gun. If you notice the M4 before it the ejection pattern was much better.
    Quote Originally Posted by C4IGrant View Post
    Colt builds War Horses, not show ponies.
    Quote Originally Posted by Iraqgunz View Post
    This is 2012. The world is going to end this December and people are still trying to debate the merits of piece of shit, cost cutting crap AR's. Really?

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    6,611
    Feedback Score
    11 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by sinlessorrow View Post
    I saw that as well but I' going to say its the gun. If you notice the M4 before it the ejection pattern was much better.
    Looks like it was doing the same thing to me, look at the last shot at 3:11. Impossible to clearly see, but the case looks like it was hit by the returning BCG after hitting the front of the ejection port to me, just like in the other scene around 3:40. I guess I'm just not sold on the baffle stack reducing back-pressure. AAC said the same thing about the M4/SPR. It jumps cyclic ROF up by around 300rpm on an M4. That is why I am skeptical, plus Surefire's own video.

    A suppressor works by slowing gasses expulsion from the muzzle, bleeding energy off of it and converting "sound" to "heat". The longer the dwell-time, the quieter the suppressor can make the gunshot, all things being equal, because the longer the gas is bled of sound to heat. This means pressure remains high in the can. Since this suppressor has the same efficacy on sound as the last suppressor, I cannot see how it could significantly alter blow-back, especially since it has the same volume, or near enough to it. The only thing I can think of is that the peak pressures are lower, and there is more or an "average" pressure with reduced peaks, allowed by the vented blast baffle. I have no doubt that it does reduce back-pressure some, but a meaningful amount? That, I would have to see proof of. So far, I have seen the opposite.

    If the massive volume of the M4/SPR is insufficient, I highly doubt that drilling holes in the baffle-stack will somehow make a huge difference. It's a great idea and evolutionary and something I think is a good thing, no doubt! However, I don't think it's the death of variable gas systems or the cure for needing an H3 in some guns.

    If anything, I am a Surefire fanboy, but I also am not going to easily accept something that goes against the laws of physics without proof. So far, Surefire's own marketing says that no, they can't beat physics, either. Of course, some will say that Surefire used a poorly built gun, or something like that. Well, maybe.
    Last edited by WS6; 10-03-12 at 12:36.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    3,095
    Feedback Score
    7 (89%)
    Just watched it again and the M4 at 3:08 looks fine to me, though I do agree the next rifle is def ejectig strangely. I did a frame by frame of the video and the case easily clears the rifle, also woth noting its a 16" carbine which are slighty overgassed with the extra 1.5" barrel.

    Until we have someone with real hands on we wont know, that second gun would be overgassed to begin with.
    Last edited by sinlessorrow; 10-03-12 at 13:13.
    Quote Originally Posted by C4IGrant View Post
    Colt builds War Horses, not show ponies.
    Quote Originally Posted by Iraqgunz View Post
    This is 2012. The world is going to end this December and people are still trying to debate the merits of piece of shit, cost cutting crap AR's. Really?

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    6,611
    Feedback Score
    11 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by sinlessorrow View Post
    Just watched it again and the M4 at 3:08 looks fine to me, though I do agree the next rifle is def ejectig strangely. I did a frame by frame of the video and the case easily clears the rifle, also woth noting its a 16" carbine which are slighty overgassed with the extra 1.5" barrel.

    Until we have someone with real hands on we wont know, that second gun would be overgassed to begin with.
    Well, time will tell. Looks like Surefire is going to be putting these in people's hands very soon!

Page 7 of 35 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •