Is a Quick Release Mount Necessary for a Suppressor?

[Spahr0311B]

I have a AAC Ranger 2 (direct thread) on my 10.5 in LMT.

I have the Ranger 2 Rocksett on the barrel, and have never had it come loose. I leave it in place unless I am doing a detail clean on the rifle. Mostly I just run a boresnake down the barrel/suppressor 5x and call it good.

This set up works well for me. That being said, I really wish I would have gone the quick detach 7.62 route. Then I wouldn't have to buy a new can for a .300 or .308 build.

[MarkG]

A dedicated set-up with a direct mount suppressor is shorter, lighter, cheaper and eliminates the maintenance issues of QD variants. The sacrificial baffle theory is just that, a theory. I have yet to find a manufacturer who has documented this as design feature of a suppressor. Even if a manufacturer did, I seriously doubt anyone will ever shoot enough to wear out blast baffles. The only real benefit of a QD system, IMO, is being able to use one suppressor across multiple hosts. QD is financial battleground for suppressor manufacturers who I'd argue have made more money selling suppressor mounts than suppressors. I crossed paths with several hundred dedicated suppressed carbines at Specialized Armament and the only damaged suppressors were a result of misuse by the agency that owned them.

[eodinert]

You can get more mounts so you can use your cans on more than one rifle.

It's a gemtech halo so I have a limitless supply of $5 mounts.

[MadDog]

I have an AAC Ranger (thread-on) dedicated to my bullpup only because I have two barrels. When I don't want to shoot suppressed I just swap out the barrels (in about 3 seconds) as the AUG platform makes it very easy. I keep the spare barrel in the case with my bullpup.

[MistWolf]

A dedicated set-up with a direct mount suppressor is shorter, lighter, cheaper and eliminates the maintenance issues of QD variants...

These are my thoughts as well. I've done a few hours of searching and reading and I'm leaning towards the direct mount Ranger 3 when it comes out. Not that I'm any kind of expert or anything, but a direct mount makes sense. Many QD muzzle devices weigh a quarter pound, cost $100-$150 each and are not of a design that I'd like to shoot with when the suppressor is removed.

hjmpanzr makes a good point, a universal mount system and a 30 caliber suppressor would let me use it on a couple different rifles, but for the moment, I just want to suppress a short barrel 5.56. If I decide later I want to run a 308 with a suppressor, I'll get a 30 caliber can at that time. I've been fascinated with suppressors since i was a kid.

These are my thoughts today. If the Ranger 3 was on the shelf and if I had the funds, I'd start the paper work now. But I am still searching, still asking questions, still listening, still learning. Tomorrow is a different day and I might come across new facts to set me along another path

[Clint]

As a thought experiment, if suppressors were cheaper and more readily available (i.e. removed from NFA), wouldn't the preferred setup generally be direct attach with 1 suppressor per barrel replacing the muzzle device?

A dedicated set-up with a direct mount suppressor is shorter, lighter, cheaper and eliminates the maintenance issues of QD variants. The sacrificial baffle theory is just that, a theory. I have yet to find a manufacturer who has documented this as design feature of a suppressor. Even if a manufacturer did, I seriously doubt anyone will ever shoot enough to wear out blast baffles. The only real benefit of a QD system, IMO, is being able to use one suppressor across multiple hosts. QD is financial battleground for suppressor manufacturers who I'd argue have made more money selling suppressor mounts than suppressors. I crossed paths with several hundred dedicated suppressed carbines at Specialized Armament and the only damaged suppressors were a result of misuse by the agency that owned them.

I have an AAC Ranger (thread-on) dedicated to my bullpup only because I have two barrels. When I don't want to shoot suppressed I just swap out the barrels (in about 3 seconds) as the AUG platform makes it very easy. I keep the spare barrel in the case with my bullpup.

[Koshinn]

These are my thoughts as well. I've done a few hours of searching and reading and I'm leaning towards the direct mount Ranger 3 when it comes out. Not that I'm any kind of expert or anything, but a direct mount makes sense. Many QD muzzle devices weigh a quarter pound, cost $100-$150 each and are not of a design that I'd like to shoot with when the suppressor is removed.

hjmpanzr makes a good point, a universal mount system and a 30 caliber suppressor would let me use it on a couple different rifles, but for the moment, I just want to suppress a short barrel 5.56. If I decide later I want to run a 308 with a suppressor, I'll get a 30 caliber can at that time. I've been fascinated with suppressors since i was a kid.

These are my thoughts today. If the Ranger 3 was on the shelf and if I had the funds, I'd start the paper work now. But I am still searching, still asking questions, still listening, still learning. Tomorrow is a different day and I might come across new facts to set me along another path

If there was no NFA, I'd have a ranger 3 on every 5.56 rifle.

Because there is, I have a single SDN-6 that I swap to every rifle.

On an SBR, here's why I chose the SDN-6:
Allows use of 300BLK
The brake is a sacrificial baffle - I have significant erosion already and feel like it has already paid for itself
Larger volume means less back pressure and less increased cycling rate
Larger bore diameter means less chance of a baffle strike out of a shorter barrel where the round might possibly not be stabilized yet and/or there might be other crap coming out of the barrel

The SDN-6 also allows me to use it on .308 rifes. However, it's not ideal for 14.5"+ 5.56 rifles.

[Aries144]

ghjkl