Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 44

Thread: New 45 suppressor released today!

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    CONUS: Pa
    Posts
    1,475
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Fireman1291 View Post
    Both video links are at the top of the thread in post #1.

    The 3-lug is internal mounted. It doesn't add any external length.
    Quote Originally Posted by BigWaylon View Post
    Yeah, I've got the link. Even posted it in the other thread. Just have t taken the time to watch it.

    Guess you'd said internal instead of integral. So, it's more like the Revolution than the Octane.
    Interesting. On another forum a member was going to use the Revolution 3-lug adapter on an Octane and he was highly advised against doing this by a former SiCo employee that was there during the development. Reasons being: changing the distance to blast baffle and decreasing volume in the chamber.

    I wonder how much the Rugged and Griffin 3-lug changes the db reduction and longevity of the suppressor by using an internal mount.
    "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    1,591
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by BigWaylon View Post
    As info...the Obsidian can also use SiCo pistons. The Rugged versions are non-vented, and thus should have less gas blowback. Using the SiCo pistons will work, just possibly with a little more blowback.
    In an effort for full disclosure, I'm going to post this from another site. I'm not going to pretend to completely understand it, but one of the posts is where my "less blowback" comment came from.


    Originally Posted By GRIFFIN_ARMAMENT:
    Originally Posted By clemsonfan:
    Originally Posted By Airborne_Infantryman:
    Are the pistons proprietary, or will it use SiCo pistons? The pistons look very similar....
    Our pistons are propriety in that they do not utilize the slots found in other manufacturers designs. This allows for a full circumference gas seal that eliminates most of the gas blow back common in other pistol suppressors. The Obsidian will work with Octane pistons, however you'll notice a slight increase in blow back due to the slotted pistons.

    Chris
    Rugged Suppressors
    For anyone that's reading this misinformation, slots in the pistons prevent rotation of the suppressor in relation to the piston under recoil. If the can rotates it will subsequently smash the piston teeth into the booster housing indexing features damaging the parts. Additionally, the ORING on the retainer deforms into the slots which creates a gas seal anyway and provides that the silencer does not rotate under recoil. [span style='font-weight: bold;'] To say that eliminating that feature is somehow a performance increase is marketing bs.[/span] Companies don't add machining features which increase cost of manufacturing for no reason.

    FYI silencer people know that Blow Back comes out the barrel.....increasing a seal would increase blow back if there were a gas leak which isn't anyway. There are enough nice things to say about most market products without resorting to misinformation to needlessly confuse the customer base.
    ETA: the above post was followed up by Fireman1291...if he wants to add his input here as well, that's great...or let it ride. It was very well said either way.
    Last edited by BigWaylon; 01-01-16 at 14:41.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    763
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    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
    Industry T&E

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    6,162
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Fireman1291 View Post
    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
    Holly shit that was well said. Thanks
    I like my rifles like my women - short, light, fast, brown, and suppressed.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    763
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sensei View Post
    Holly shit that was well said. Thanks
    I need to go back and fix some minor spelling typos lol
    Industry T&E

  6. #16
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    7,711
    Feedback Score
    10 (100%)
    @Fireman1291, can you give your real world subjective description as to "the sound" of this suppressor with various calibers.

    I know you demonstrated it in the video, but the actual streaming audio track doesn't sound 'real world' to me. Perhaps there is some limiting or compression going on with your recording or the YT render transcode process or whatever...

    So do you think you could describe what it sounds like as you progress downward through the calibers. .45, 9MM, .22lr and especially when you get to .22lr how does that subjective sound compare to say one of your favorite dedicated .22lr cans.

    whatever generalized subjective impressions you may have had in testing and comparison.

    and two side questions. Is there any sort of reconfiguration, end cap reducer, or such when going down to .22lr or just the same .45 cal hole.

    and finally... it says rated for .300 bLK... so this would work for a typical .300BLK SBR? like a 9".

    TIA.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    1,591
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by tb-av View Post
    and finally... it says rated for .300 bLK... so this would work for a typical .300BLK SBR? like a 9".
    Subsonic ammo only...otherwise, yes.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    7,711
    Feedback Score
    10 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by BigWaylon View Post
    Subsonic ammo only...otherwise, yes.
    Ok, thanks, how about a 9MM SBR like say 11"? Same thing, subsonic only or any 9MM?

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    1,591
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by tb-av View Post
    Ok, thanks, how about a 9MM SBR like say 11"? Same thing, subsonic only or any 9MM?
    For 9mm, it won't matter. It'll handle anything. (Same for .40 and .45)

  10. #20
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    7,711
    Feedback Score
    10 (100%)
    Thanks. This really sounds like it would be a nice setup for me.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... 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
  •