Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 67

Thread: Thermal Defense Solutions Bantam II Suppressor

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    231
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    You just can't stop can you?

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Atlanta area
    Posts
    791
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by okie View Post
    Not only can it be made with traditional machining (we're talking manual lathe here), it can be made with off the shelf components.
    Sorry bro, but this is absolutely untrue. So much so, it makes me question if we are even discussing the same can here.

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    463
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by georgeib View Post
    Sorry bro, but this is absolutely untrue. So much so, it makes me question if we are even discussing the same can here.
    It's almost like he's never seen or used the can in person, but just likes to argue. ;-)

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    231
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    At this point we can all agree that Okie has never actually seen this can in person but knows so much more about suppressor design that TDS should probably hire him.....

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    1,243
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Fatorangecat View Post
    At this point we can all agree that Okie has never actually seen this can in person but knows so much more about suppressor design that TDS should probably hire him.....
    Have you seen the inside of it? Because I have. Sounds like others in this thread have, too.

    And it's not that I'm claiming to have some advanced knowledge of suppressor design. I just know enough about the physics behind it, I understand why they're built the way they are, and why you can't get big can performance from a small one, or reduce back pressure without sacrificing suppression.

    I would LOVE to be wrong here. If the company would substantiate the claims they've made, I would not only eat crow, I would run right out and buy one, right after figuring out how to invest in whoever holds the patent. But it's been like two or three years I think, and they still haven't released any data as far as I'm aware. I literally scoured the internet trying to find something concrete and it just doesn't seem to be there. And please don't insinuate that I'm accusing anyone of lying, because I'm not. But until the test protocols are released, or independent tests are done, the numbers have no meaning. At the muzzle? At the ear? Two counties over? They just throw out some number without any context whatsoever.

    And I'm not accusing you of lying either, so you can stop that, too. What you don't realize is that you can't just guestimate how loud something is. For example, I have a can I made that's about the same size as the TDSs. While it doesn't cause discomfort, I know intellectually that it's far from hearing safe, and I would never make a habit of using it without ear pro.
    Last edited by okie; 04-12-21 at 01:06.

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    1,243
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by georgeib View Post
    Sorry bro, but this is absolutely untrue. So much so, it makes me question if we are even discussing the same can here.
    I spend most days designing products specifically for additive manufacturing, that can’t be made any other way. Trust me, there are many ways to skin that cat without resorting to printing, that would either be lighter or have more volume for the same weight. Generally speaking, there are fewer design restrictions for cnc than for 3d printing. Like I said before, a 1 to 1 exact copy wouldn't be possible, obviously, but that doesn't mean that the same design principles can't be applied. That is, a can inside a can. You could even put helical skirts on the cone cups with CNC if you really wanted to, though I suspect that it doesn't really do anything that would warrant it.

    Again 3d printing is the future, but it’s just like blockchain, solar, electric, or any other emerging tech. Way too many people asking if they can, vs if they should.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Last edited by okie; 04-12-21 at 06:40.

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    231
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by okie View Post
    I would LOVE to be wrong here.
    Coulda fooled me.....

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Artesia, New Mexico
    Posts
    61
    Feedback Score
    0
    After browsing this thread, without diving into proprietary info and stuff, here's how things really are.

    The silencer isn't "designed by the literal rocket scientists at Oak Ridge National Labs". It isn't even using anything meaningful or relevant to any patents ORNL holds that would provide them with any positive benefit. They didn't even have to license anything from ORNL because it's all already been done before. It's just using consumers perceptions of the entity for marketing purposes to make people believe that just because ORNL was involved in some part of the process that it makes it the best and most advanced thing ever made. CFD is completely useless for silencer development. It's a meaningless money drain for which the sole benefit to the manufacturer is that they get to tell consumers that it was DeSiGnEd WiTh SuPeRcOmPuTeRs like that actually means anything. The best silencers you can buy were never touched by CFD.

    Flow through silencers have existed since at least 1909 and in their current form since at least 1927. Full auto rated doesn't mean anything except that the manufacturer will fix it when it breaks. That applies to everyone. First round pop can be undetectable by ear because all the shots are loud. Any time you vent gas to atmosphere quicker than normal it will be loud. The TDS silencers are simple shallow vented cone baffles with a vented blast chamber directing to the spiral around the core and a vented front cap for both the core and for the coaxial. There's so much wrong with the claims on the website it would take far too long to dissect them.

    Direct thread is perfectly fine for most peoples real life applications, you don't need to "grab an 800 suppressor to verify its tight" when the silencer has wrench flats, or if it has a SIG 25 deg taper and compatible barrel shoulder if hand tightening. If the wrench flats are utilized then the silencer isn't going to come loose and it isn't a concern at all. Wrench flats are something this silencer should have had implemented into it.

    Mag dumping the silencer isn't going to magically clean it all by itself.

    This silencer absolutely can easily be made by traditional machining methods. Anyone that's actually seen the inside of one that knows machining would know that, and it would be incredibly easy to accomplish. 3D printing does provide weight savings over traditional machining.

    This silencer is not hearing safe. But also just because something brakes the sound barrier does not at all mean it will cause hearing damage or even be remotely unpleasant for the shooter or bystanders. It is possible to make a 7.62 rifle silencer on a 22" bolt gun firing supersonic 6.5 Creedmoor quieter than a fullsize 9mm silencer is on a 9mm handgun firing subsonic ammo. Not by just a little bit either, it's noticeable and measurable. It is possible to very nearly make it as quiet at the ear as a fullsize 22LR silencer on a 22LR handgun firing subsonic ammo.

    You don't have to own a silencer to know about it, all you have to do is shoot through it then you'll know plenty about how it performs on that host firearm in that exact config. This particular silencer you guys are talking about comes with a crush washer, but a crush washer shouldn't be used at all.

    Meters do not pick up the actual peak of a gunshot, and even if they did the peak dB is irrelevant anyway. The sole source of sound data anyone should ever use is PewScience.
    CGS Group LLC
    Silencers, firing devices/initiators/detonators, and custom precision rifles.

    www.cgsgroup.com
    sales@cgsgroup.com

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    463
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Good stuff Paco - thanks for taking the time to write all that. For the record, mine did not come with a crush washer. I agree it would be silly to use a crush washer on a suppressor, and I'm not sure why they would ever include one.

    How do we get PewScience to test one of these???
    Last edited by Matt in TN; 04-12-21 at 19:38.

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Lowcountry, SC.
    Posts
    3,393
    Feedback Score
    20 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by paco ramirez View Post

    Meters do not pick up the actual peak of a gunshot, and even if they did the peak dB is irrelevant anyway. The sole source of sound data anyone should ever use is PewScience.
    Noted. Thanks.
    RLTW
    Y-you realize that nighttime makes up half of all time? -Rick Sanchez

    Disclosure: I am now affiliated with a tactical training center, but my opinions are my own, and not anyone elses, unless specifically stated otherwise by myself. I am also contracted as an austere/conflict medical resource and consultant by another org. I don't speak for them here, either.

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 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
  •