|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
You are correct.
http://youtu.be/a_LuHzfzYtc
The popular thing to do on forums it seems is bash not only Surefire cans but KAC cans as being "loud" as well. I believe it's due to people rationalizing their suppressor choice(s). These people were unwilling to pay the premium associated with a better can, thus you see rationalizing of their purchases.
Cans made for the military are not made with suppression levels as tbe main concern. Military cans are designed for muzzle flash reduction, noise signature reduction, and strength/reliability. Most units that run suppressors in the military are running electronic hear protection / communication headsets, so db reduction isn't a huge deal. When I made my statement about Surefire cans being louder it was based on every video that I have seen that metered them. MAC listed the 762 on a 556 at 143dB and 146dB on a 762. The GA test showed the 556rc on a 10.3 at 138.7dB and on a 14.5 at 137.5dB. But like I said, max db reduction isn't their primary goal. When I buy a can it is based more on max db reduction because I'm not wanting to run ear plugs or a headset.
I'm not knocking anyone or company. There is just a difference in design goals between military cans and civilian cans. Buy which ever want.
Last edited by dm_graham308; 09-11-15 at 14:30.
I agree with dm_graham308. Mil-Std cans aren't even necessarily the most expensive on the market these days. Cans utilizing leading edge materials and construction are likely to be as or more expensive. Likewise, there are more different types of cans available, some catering to niche markets. You can get a bombproof can for sustained hard use like Surefire or KAC, a super LW can for hunting applications where weight reduction is a must, a compact for short rifles intended for use in tight confines, even multi-cal cans that are user serviceable so the purchaser can use them on multiple firearm types.
Unless you're willing to forego all other considerations in exchange for a single priority, selecting the "best" can for your ultimate use is more difficult than ever. Still, they've advanced so far that you're likely to get a better can for your use than ever before, even if you don't wind up with the "best" one. You're spending enough that doing as much research and getting as much actual user feedback as possible is sound reasoning.
I have a decent 5.56 can right now, but it's not getting used enough because I'm spending more time using other calibers. My next can needs to be .30 cal, will not see high rates of fire and needs to be as light and compact as possible. Low POI shift is a 2nd level concern, but a can with less weight and leverage should benefit that need if the design is sound.
What if this whole crusade's a charade?
And behind it all there's a price to be paid
For the blood which we dine
Justified in the name of the holy and the divine…
Serious question for you, have you ever shot a suppressed supersonic centerfire rifle suppressed without ear pro on? You are going to be very disappointed, none of them are hearing safe. Look at the Db at shooter's ear numbers in the video I posted, specifically on the SBR (which is where most 5.56 rifle cans are used).
A Centerfire rifle can does 2 things for me in regards to sound suppression. 1. Makes training with the rifle comfortable even with light ear protection, 2. If I need to use it for a bump in the night it will mitigate hearing loss and allow me to actually save some hearing immediately following my shots.
Durability (Surefire & KAC are big winners here), attachment method (and POI shift, Surefire & KAC big winners here), overall length/weight (Surefire & KAC are big winners here) and flash suppression (so you can save your night vision, Surefire & KAC big winners here) are also very important to anyone looking to put a can on a defensive rifle IMO, not just military.
Think of it like this, we all hear the term "mil-spec" and people have long believed holding as close as possible to that standard (or improving it) is a good thing. Why on earth would you believe your requirements would be substantially different than what .mil is looking for in a suppressor? If you want to chase Dbs, do so with pistol & rimfire cans where that actually makes sense since these cans will truly be hearing safe. A Db or two on a rifle can is nothing and choosing a can that may be a smudge "quieter" (not that you'll notice) but may be longer, heavier, less durable, crappy attachment method with larger POI shift, fireball coming out the front of the can, etc. is illogical.
Since this thread is exploring any possible downsides of the Omega, are you suggesting that these are downfalls of the Omega? I am not aware of any commercially available SilencerCo suppressors that have been involved in any military testing. Have any SilencerCo suppressors been vigorously tested against comparable Surefire or KAC suppressors? The decible level testing is not of much interest to me, but it is one aspect that interests others.
To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society. --Theodore Roosevelt--
No direct testing that I know of nor do I have any direct experience with the Omega. The blast baffle is the only stellate baffle & it's not rated for as short barrels as the Saker which is a clue to me it wasn't built for extreme durability. ASR mount is secure but generally has been associated with more significant POI shift with previous cans (Specwar) so that would worry me. Being other baffles are titanium (that is how the light weight was achieved) and they put a brake on the end of the can, I'm thinking it would also fall short in low light testing. The weight on the Omega is good, but length sucks on a 5.56. SiCo is a solid company that would stand behind their product & I'm sure sound suppression is wonderful for 5.56, but at least for me I'll take a pass on the Omega for the reasons I listed.
I don't think the Omega has ever been advertised as a hard use suppressor. SilencerCo states, "shortest, lightest, quietest, most versatile, full auto and magnum rated with an integral recoil reducing Anchor Brake". If those features are being sought after, they cannot all be found in any Surefire or KAC offering. The degree of suck created by the length is subjective. It just depends on the equipment being used. I imagine that anyone attempting to use any suppressor for a purpose in which it was not intended will experience poor results.
To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society. --Theodore Roosevelt--
I have a lot of experience with the M110 system and have shot it both with and without hearing protection. I'm happy with centerfire suppressors and what they have to offer. I wish fewer people would question posters' experience and stick to the topic of the threads.
I look forward to hearing from more users of the omega that have experience with other cans and see how they compare.
So your reasons for using a centerfire rifle can are the only valid ones? If so, by your standards every user should only choose the QDC CQB or SOCOM Mini. Suppressor sales figures completely disagree with your opinion.
Since they diverge so significantly, let's see what users with other potential uses would be giving up in order to get "mil-spec" standards.
The Silencerco Omega with flat cap in direct thread configuration is only 6.06" long and under 14oz.
The KAC 7.62 QDC CQB is longer, heavier and a LOT louder. Want to direct thread it onto your .308 bolt gun? No dice.
How about the Surefire SOCOM762-MINI? slightly longer, significantly heavier and still not as quiet, nor as versatile.
Want either of them to reduce recoil on your .300WM? While I'm sure all that extra weight on the end of a 20"-26" barrel won't hurt, it's not going to compare to the anchor brake.
While the KAC 7.62 QDC and SOCOM762-RC will compare more favorably in sound reduction, they definitely lose in size and weight. The Surefire Genesis 7.62 direct thread is very close in sound reduction and price, but it's 33% longer, 25% heavier, isn't modular and isn't available in QD.
Simply put, most civilian users wanting a .30 cal can will occasionally shoot it w/o earpro, especially if they're hunting. They're not going to use it to fire hundreds of rounds of 5.56 in a single day in a class. They're mostly not going to use it at night either. Even if they throw it on an SBR for HD use, it's still going to mitigate flash, still going to be compact and maneuverable and it's going to reduce SPL's better than a heavy duty mini can. On a 9" .300BLK, you'd be hard pressed to ever erode the baffles appreciably.
For your specified uses it may not be the best option, but expecting everyone else to use a can exactly like some tip of the spear operator in a foreign land is unrealistic. For most of us, a short, lightweight, modular can makes a lot more sense. IF I decide on the Omega, it will be mounted on a 16" 6.8 hunting AR with the Trifecta muzzle brake (which will serve as a sacrificial blast baffle with the can attached and reduce recoil w/o the can) and flat end cap. I'll eventually use it in direct thread/flat cap configuration on an 8"-9" .300BLK for the shortest, lightest, quietest PDW type setup I can create. In those roles, it will work better than the Surefire or KAC cans.
What if this whole crusade's a charade?
And behind it all there's a price to be paid
For the blood which we dine
Justified in the name of the holy and the divine…
Bookmarks