Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 64

Thread: Thermal Defense Solutions Bantam II Suppressor

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    231
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by okie View Post
    I said as or more because I was speaking broadly about additive cans in general. Some cans are or were offered in both ti and inconel options.

    My point is that a conventional can will be mostly ti with a few stainless baffles and maybe one from inconel.

    As for those cans actually being hearing safe, I haven’t seen any proof of that yet. With those dimensions, I am extremely skeptical to say the least. Anything is hearing safe with a long enough barrel and the right ammunition.

    As far as it being 8 oz, that’s because it’s tiny by 223 standards. It’s even small by 22 standards. Were it a conventional ti tube with blast baffles it would be about 30% lighter. And cheaper too.

    As far as my qualifications I’m a draftsman whose job is almost 100% drafting for additive manufacturing applications.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Alright man you are talking in circles. I’m not a shill for TDS I just own this particular can and have personal experience with it. As to the claim that it is hearing safe, at the muzzle the reduction is shocking from a can this size. Not only is there a significant decibel reduction but it has a good tone. Shooting a high velocity round like MK262 it will still crack like any can. You keep saying that a can made of ti will be lighter. Yes, ti is lighter than inconel but show me a ti can that measures 1.2x5” that is full auto rated for 5.56. You keep comparing this can to a traditional baffled can and it is not the same. If you could make a can with SS/ti/inconel and make it cheaper, lighter, smaller and more durable then do it. I’ll buy one. Quit your drafting job and engineer a can. I hear TDS is doing quite well with gov contracts. You keep presenting your opinion as if you are an authority on the subject and you have never even heard this can. You have no personal experience with it and what you are saying is opinion, not fact, and my personal experience with this particular can contradicts what you are saying. You are presenting your opinion as fact and it is misleading to anyone reading this thread that is interested in the can.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    231
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by okie View Post
    I said as or more because I was speaking broadly about additive cans in general. Some cans are or were offered in both ti and inconel options.

    My point is that a conventional can will be mostly ti with a few stainless baffles and maybe one from inconel.

    As for those cans actually being hearing safe, I havenít seen any proof of that yet. With those dimensions, I am extremely skeptical to say the least. Anything is hearing safe with a long enough barrel and the right ammunition.

    As far as it being 8 oz, thatís because itís tiny by 223 standards. Itís even small by 22 standards. Were it a conventional ti tube with blast baffles it would be about 30% lighter. And cheaper too.

    As far as my qualifications Iím a draftsman whose job is almost 100% drafting for additive manufacturing applications.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Alright man you are talking in circles. Iím not a shill for TDS I just own this particular can and have personal experience with it. As to the claim that it is hearing safe, at the muzzle the reduction is shocking from a can this size. Not only is there a significant decibel reduction but it has a good tone. Shooting a high velocity round like MK262 it will still crack like any can. You keep saying that a can made of ti will be lighter. Yes, ti is lighter than inconel but show me a ti can that measures 1.2x5Ē that is full auto rated for 5.56. You keep comparing this can to a traditional baffled can and it is not the same. If you could make a can with SS/ti/inconel and make it cheaper, lighter, smaller and more durable then do it. Iíll buy one. Quit your drafting job and engineer a can. I hear TDS is doing quite well with gov contracts. You keep presenting your opinion as if you are an authority on the subject and you have never even heard this can. You have no personal experience with it and what you are saying is opinion, not fact, and my personal experience with this particular can contradicts what you are saying. You are presenting your opinion as fact and it is misleading to anyone reading this thread that is interested in the can.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    1,021
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Fatorangecat View Post
    Alright man you are talking in circles. I’m not a shill for TDS I just own this particular can and have personal experience with it. As to the claim that it is hearing safe, at the muzzle the reduction is shocking from a can this size. Not only is there a significant decibel reduction but it has a good tone. Shooting a high velocity round like MK262 it will still crack like any can. You keep saying that a can made of ti will be lighter. Yes, ti is lighter than inconel but show me a ti can that measures 1.2x5” that is full auto rated for 5.56. You keep comparing this can to a traditional baffled can and it is not the same. If you could make a can with SS/ti/inconel and make it cheaper, lighter, smaller and more durable then do it. I’ll buy one. Quit your drafting job and engineer a can. I hear TDS is doing quite well with gov contracts. You keep presenting your opinion as if you are an authority on the subject and you have never even heard this can. You have no personal experience with it and what you are saying is opinion, not fact, and my personal experience with this particular can contradicts what you are saying. You are presenting your opinion as fact and it is misleading to anyone reading this thread that is interested in the can.
    All I really needed to hear was the guy at SHOT claim it would do 137db on a 10 inch 556. If that's even close to being on the level then it would be a miracle and everybody knows it. While I haven't tested one and therefore can't say that's false, what I can say is that if you go making claims like that then you had better have some damned good evidence to back it up.

    What I will say is that the human ear, and even most equipment, is extremely poor at judging whether something is hearing safe or not. Something can be well above hearing safe and not cause you any pain, or even sound much louder than if it were safe, and like you mentioned tone can make that even more deceptive. It's just disheartening when a manufacturer makes a claim like that, and claims to have testing to back it up, but doesn't provide said testing or even show a willingness to demonstrate it. Like for example throwing that can on a Mk18 and blasting away without ear pro. Hell, if you can make a can that size not ring your ears on a Mk18 that's a major accomplishment in and of itself. So yea...

    Look I'm not saying it's a bad suppressor. Far from it. And I'm sorry that a debate from another thread got dragged into this one. Obviously that was not my intention.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    231
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    I'm not going to play semantics. Anything above 85 decibels can cause damage. Anything that breaks the sound barrier will cause damage. When people are talking about hearing safe 138 decibels is the benchmark. I use this can on a 16" barrel and I think it is ideal for that application. A friend runs his on a 12.5" and I would not consider it hearing safe at all but TDS makes larger volume cans for shorter barrels.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    231
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    I'm not going to play semantics. Anything above 85 decibels can cause damage. Anything that breaks the sound barrier will cause damage. When people are talking about hearing safe 138 decibels is the benchmark. I use this can on a 16" barrel and I think it is ideal for that application. A friend runs his on a 12.5" and I would not consider it hearing safe at all but TDS makes larger volume cans for shorter barrels.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    231
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    And I have no idea why this keeps double posting

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    451
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Fatorangecat View Post
    The TDS suppressor we are talking about is inconel, weighs 8oz, is 1.2"x5", and full auto rated not really sure what weight savings are being eaten up?
    This. And there is no way you could make this design with traditional machining (coming from a licensed mechanical engineer and hobbyist machinist who has made two Form 1 cans already).

    There are lots of things that are 3D printed that could just as easily be traditionally machined, and I agree that is a stupid use of additive manufacturing. TDS cans are NOT that.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    1,021
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)

    Thermal Defense Solutions Bantam II Suppressor

    Quote Originally Posted by Fatorangecat View Post
    I'm not going to play semantics. Anything above 85 decibels can cause damage. Anything that breaks the sound barrier will cause damage. When people are talking about hearing safe 138 decibels is the benchmark. I use this can on a 16" barrel and I think it is ideal for that application. A friend runs his on a 12.5" and I would not consider it hearing safe at all but TDS makes larger volume cans for shorter barrels.
    What semantics??? Dude, I'm not saying it's a bad silencer. Quite the opposite. I'm just saying it's not the magic sauce it's being made out to be, and that the company is making some pretty fantastic claims that haven't been substantiated in any way that even begins to satisfy my skepticism.
    Last edited by okie; 04-11-21 at 23:09.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    451
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by okie View Post
    I'm just saying it's not the magic sauce it's being made out to be, and that the company is making some pretty fantastic claims that haven't been substantiated.
    Part A above is the issue. You are saying flat out their claims are false, and you've never even heard the can. Part B I'd agree with - they have made some fantastic claims that have yet to be substantiated. I didn't believe them either, but eventually decided to take a chance to find out for myself.

    I don't have any test equipment so I sure can't offer proof to substantiate anything, but I'm more than happy with the can. That's all that I was trying to get across with my review. There is so much "they have to full of $hit" out there from people who have never even heard the can in person, I figured I'd at least add a countering perspective from someone who has shot it repeatedly.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    451
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Damn - now I'm getting double posts every time too. It must be a conspiracy! ;-)

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... 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
  •