Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 62

Thread: Pic Request: Surefire FA556K Flash Hider

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    868
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by SuicideHz View Post
    Good thing we aren't fighting against androids yet.

    I believe you Robert, as always, but your data just gets a little too involved and doesn't take into account the human element.

    Is 25% more than a standard vortex visible to the human eye? No? Well then keep it to yourself.

    ZGXtreme was asking about it's usefulness in the real world, not imaginary world.
    Thanks Suicide, I don't want to carry this on and possibly start an argument but I have no experience with a vortex so I have nothing to compare the information you all have provided to. How can I alter the information provided to get an idea of how the SF compares to a simple, normal :mil-spec" style flash hider/compensator.

    I guess what I am asking is, how much (if a % can even be applied) difference does the vortex have over the m/s FH? With that I can split the difference and get a somewhat vague standing of where the SF is between the two.

    If I am a pain it the ass lemme know, aside from that thanks bro.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    356
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ZGXtreme View Post
    Thanks Suicide, I don't want to carry this on and possibly start an argument but I have no experience with a vortex so I have nothing to compare the information you all have provided to. How can I alter the information provided to get an idea of how the SF compares to a simple, normal :mil-spec" style flash hider/compensator.

    I guess what I am asking is, how much (if a % can even be applied) difference does the vortex have over the m/s FH? With that I can split the difference and get a somewhat vague standing of where the SF is between the two.

    If I am a pain it the ass lemme know, aside from that thanks bro.
    The A2 FH does not work very well. The SF FH will be a definite improvement.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Northwest IN
    Posts
    3,119
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Your question of how well the SF performs over an industry benchmark such as the vortex is a good one.

    However when the answer is inperceptible to the human eye, you ought to be told that and not some bullshit answer that only one person can actually verify.

    So at 25% more than a Vortex, the SF flash suppressor does a great job.

    I believe AAC uses YHM's phantom design- one who's signature is about double that of a Vortex. Were it only 10% more, we'd be hearing about how AAC's is much better than a Surefire. But since it's the other way around, we will just hear how the SF isn't as good as a Vortex.

    This is how RS shares his information. If you look at what he presents and how he presents it, you can easily read between the lines.

    Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball...

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    NoVA
    Posts
    5,963
    Feedback Score
    12 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by rsilvers View Post
    I did detailed tests with a camera on manual exposure, and then had software measure the luminosity of the flash by summing the brightness of the pixels. The Surefire had as much as 25% more flash than a Vortex. No doubt if you had certain ammo with flash inhibitors or a longer barrel it would appear the same to the eye under non-controlled circumstances -- but I would not consider it an equal-performance flash suppressor to a Smith Vortex.
    Photos?

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,705
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by SuicideHz View Post

    I believe AAC uses YHM's phantom design- one who's signature is about double that of a Vortex. Were it only 10% more, we'd be hearing about how AAC's is much better than a Surefire. But since it's the other way around, we will just hear how the SF isn't as good as a Vortex.
    I found that the YHM Phantom was 10% more flash than the Vortex. AAC had YHM make 36 new prototypes and came up with an AAC-proprietary version which closed the gap. The AAC Phantom, while made by YHM, is a special version that has less flash. All you have to do is hold it next to a Phantom bought from YHM to see they are not the same.

    SuicideHZ (and all of your other online names), read between these lines: The AAC BLACKOUT flash suppressor has the least flash of any flash suppressor I tested, including the Vortex and BE Meyers. It is way better than the Surefire which was the worst that I tested aside from the A2. R&D costs were approx $170,000. That is what it can take to get that extra bit of performance. A 90% solution is cheap.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    27,216
    Feedback Score
    14 (100%)
    I have my blackout mounted. It is a facinating design, Robert.

    When I got it out of the package the tuning fork affect was very noticeable. But when I mounted it... the unit threaded back past the shoulder of the barrel by about 1/4", and the tuning fork effect was gone.

    Will the blackout work on a heavy barrel?

    I can't wait to shoot it at night.
    "You people have too much time on your hands." - scottryan

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    82
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by SuicideHz View Post
    My point was that I don't think 25% over the vortex's super low signature is enough for the human eye to see.

    ETA: I see you mentioned "electro optics." Didn't I say "human eye" in my first reply? Now I'm mentioning it again. IF it's a perceivable difference to the human eye then I'll listen to you but I'm betting it's not.

    You are wrong. We have performed extensive testing on muzzle flash. The difference that Robert mentions is clearly visible to the human eye under the proper conditions. It is not just theory.

    But yes, if you use a 28" barrel...use any flash hider that you think looks cool or only cost $8.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    356
    Feedback Score
    0
    What improvement of flash suppression does the Black Out FH offer over the phantom when the suppressor is mounted? How much flash does the SF can have when mounted?

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    868
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Trim2L View Post
    The A2 FH does not work very well. The SF FH will be a definite improvement.

    Thank you. Was wondering if I should look at the Surefire FH prior to getting the can if it offered improvement in and of itself. Think I may be giving SF L.E. a call here in a few days! Thanks guys.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    NoVA
    Posts
    5,963
    Feedback Score
    12 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by rsilvers View Post
    I found that the YHM Phantom was 10% more flash than the Vortex.
    Could you please post the analysis pictures?? The previous sets you did before are of great value to a great many users...

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... 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
  •