Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 27 of 27

Thread: The Destruction of AAC from within.

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    NM
    Posts
    3,988
    Feedback Score
    10 (100%)
    I'd argue not a bad name - but it's far from the first eccentric pistol can with an improved booster to reach the market, and as the market for large heavy pistols keeps moving towards micro-RDS options the need to run suppressor height iron sights stops being an actual limitation (and actually is requisite for running an RMR/Deltapoint/similar setup, not to mention very fast). More cans and more variety is awesome, but the Illusion to me looks like a product improved eccentric baffle (the brilliance in that can I'm guessing is how the recoil booster works despite the bore offset) on an existing 9mm can external set, so if performs as well as a larger volume rectangular cross-section can [Osprey] then I'm going to be beyond impressed, but sticking with a circular cross-section loses out on internal volume for the can without the manufacturing or CFD assistance simplicity of making it concentric (again, I'm impressed the booster system runs, as that's excellent design work, but from my limited perspective I don't see the end user utility for the engineering exercise). I'd rather see complete integral systems coming out (e.g. complete DPMS based pistol caliber uppers in Honey Badger configuration ???), but the Illusion-II despite being a cool looking can doesn't to me constitute a counterargument for AAC not being a frontrunner in released products at very many price ranges, if anything this is probably more to do with the time costs associated with moving a whole company moving back release dates on certain products.
    عندما تصبح الأسلحة محظورة, قد يملكون حظرون عندهم فقط
    کله چی سلاح منع شوی دی، یوازي غلوونکۍ یی به درلود
    Semper Fi
    "Being able to do the basics, on demand, takes practice. " - Sinister

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,705
    Feedback Score
    0
    For sure there is a market for pistol cans that work with normal sights. That is a given. So it is good to have one in the product line, and we realized through black box development that it is best to use a round tube. John quickly mentioned why in the video, but it was easy to miss. Pressure vessels, such as propane and SCUBA tanks, are round because the pressure tries to make them that way. So if you use a rectangular shape with flat sides, you have to use extra-thick (and so heavier amounts of) material for any given desired durability. So if a rectangular can and a round can are the same weight, then the round one is more durable, all else being equal. If the cans are the same durability, then the round one is lighter.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,397
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by rsilvers View Post
    For sure there is a market for pistol cans that work with normal sights. That is a given. So it is good to have one in the product line, and we realized through black box development that it is best to use a round tube. John quickly mentioned why in the video, but it was easy to miss. Pressure vessels, such as propane and SCUBA tanks, are round because the pressure tries to make them that way. So if you use a rectangular shape with flat sides, you have to use extra-thick (and so heavier amounts of) material for any given desired durability. So if a rectangular can and a round can are the same weight, then the round one is more durable, all else being equal. If the cans are the same durability, then the round one is lighter.
    Specs before SHOT?

    I think it's an interesting enough can, but I find the more "serious" of a handgun shooter you are the less you use pistol cans. That's at least been my experience. No holster really kills it for me.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    219
    Feedback Score
    39 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by rsilvers View Post
    For sure there is a market for pistol cans that work with normal sights. That is a given. So it is good to have one in the product line, and we realized through black box development that it is best to use a round tube. John quickly mentioned why in the video, but it was easy to miss. Pressure vessels, such as propane and SCUBA tanks, are round because the pressure tries to make them that way. So if you use a rectangular shape with flat sides, you have to use extra-thick (and so heavier amounts of) material for any given desired durability. So if a rectangular can and a round can are the same weight, then the round one is more durable, all else being equal. If the cans are the same durability, then the round one is lighter.
    That's a very interesting point that I've never thought of when comparing rectangular suppressors to your standard cylindrical style. Makes a lot of sense actually.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,705
    Feedback Score
    0

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    GA
    Posts
    3,704
    Feedback Score
    43 (100%)
    I've heard a rumor that the original Tirant and M4-2000 were both going to be discontinued. Care to fill us in?

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,705
    Feedback Score
    0

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

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
  •