User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/20/2005 6:22:50 PM EDT
[#1]
Lol. It's something the ATF would have to think about for a long, long time to figure out even 
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2005 6:41:47 PM EDT
[#2]
We have some designs for a few options in this regard. One is a baffle stack that will replace the cone, and extend past the normal OAL. Also, we have designs for some of the QR Silencer Mounts. It will be a month or so before the protos are built. Thanks for your interest.
----John Noveske |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2005 7:56:12 PM EDT
[#3]
Outstanding. Thanks John.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2005 8:13:29 PM EDT
[#4]
 Good to know I was thinking along the right track! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2005 8:39:04 PM EDT
[#5]
were these pics in a SWAT magazine?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2005 8:50:32 PM EDT
[#6]
Yes. Pat Rogers wrote an article about the KFH and Noveske barrels.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2005 8:27:35 AM EDT
[#7]
thats a 12" Larue w/ 10.5" bbl right?
also what kind of camo is that? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2005 10:48:35 AM EDT
[#8]
9.0 LaRue IIRC and krylon. I almost got to shoot that rifle once, but didnt have time... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2005 11:52:20 AM EDT
[#9]
it said 12" larue in the article. I new something was wrong
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2005 1:49:57 PM EDT
[#10]
why have one on , anything longer than a 10.5?????? can someone explain it to me??
thought these were for sbr's. dont see the usefulness in anything longer... any advantages over a vortex or phantom in longer bbl's??? just curious........... meat |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2005 2:04:34 PM EDT
[#11]
The KFH exhibits diminishing returns when the barrel length exceeds about 11.5 inches. If a 12.5 ever comes out (I have seen a prototype) I would not use a KFH. YMMV. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2005 4:13:12 AM EDT
[#12]
How about the effect I noticed, but no one has hyped yet...groups went from slightly strung high/left down to low/right..and became perfectly round groupings using the Krink. Maybe just a barrel weight phenomena, but rounder groups vs. slightly strung out I count as an improvement directly attributed to the Krink. And the decrease in perceived noise INSIDE MY EARMUFFS was considerable. Possibly as much as when wearing ear plugs under the muffs. Less noise exposure is always a good thing, especially when you're shooting 2 or 3K a year worth of practice rounds. I'm in the process of re-tuning the gas port on my shorty, after which I fully intend to revisit getting my Zombie rifle running with the Krink. Between the uber light weight carrier(Colt "C" style weighs 20 grams less than RRA), standard weight buffer, and a 10 year old oem extractor(marked "C") I think my FTEx issue when Krinked is curable. But deer season is here soon, and I have other irons in the fire. John Noveske has already answered several questions I had about getting my 18 running right, as well as provided addittional insight into his CQB barrel system. A "cut down 20" was not part of their testing, obviously because such modifications are extremely rare. A manufacture such as John has no obligation to help out "fools who wander off the beaten track", but he has done so graciously, and I appreciated and valued his input. Paladin |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2005 9:08:12 PM EDT
[#13]
tag
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/27/2005 9:04:39 PM EDT
[#14]
Just noticed this on the Noveske website:
Now that is great after-sales support! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2005 3:18:34 AM EDT
[#15]
 THE DIFFERENCE IN PERCEIVED SOUND LEVEL WITH THE 7.5" USING THE KFH IS AMAZING.  NEXT EDITION, WITH KX3:  SAY "AHHH" ...  WES GRANT M.S.T.N. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2005 7:38:53 AM EDT
[#16]
Heh heh, that is sweet.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2005 5:45:35 PM EDT
[#17]
What a JN 12.5........you F---ing with us man or what.that would be the perfect size for an upcoming project..and I thought I might have to chop a 14.5..................
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2005 7:30:36 PM EDT
[#18]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2005 9:35:01 PM EDT
[#19]
The peak benefits of the KFH/KX3 are realized on a SBR, but I have seen some folks run them on a 14.5 or 16 inch gun as well. Personally, on the longer barrels I stick with the A2 compensator.
As an aside, there was an editing error in the issue of SWAT Magazine. The barrel length is actually 10.5" and the rail was a LaRue 9.0. Tim |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2005 9:54:21 PM EDT
[#20]
This thing is sweet looking.
I wonder, would a KAC mid length FF rail fit around that Krink?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2006 8:37:44 PM EDT
[#21]
Is one availavle for the FAL?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2006 10:05:15 PM EDT
[#22]
Can that configuration come apart for making changes? What's the best way for dismantling? Strap wrench strong enough to take off the KX3 installed with Loctite? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2006 10:06:14 PM EDT
[#23]
"I think you may be thinking about this all wrong. They are looking for an adapter to go on the end of the barrel that would be common to the suppressor and the KFH. In other words, take off the KFH, put on the suppressor OR take off the suppressor and then put on the KFH." Why not just use the suppressor all the time? As long as you get something short and reasonably light you have better flash suppression, less noise, and better recoil control with the suppressor. If you own one I don't see the point of the KFH. Suppressors increase dwell time too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2006 10:25:16 PM EDT
[#24]
.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2006 2:21:11 AM EDT
[#25]
.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2006 4:22:52 AM EDT
[#26]
Cool....I wish they would just send the cone so I don't have to be w/o the flash hider.  Bomber |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2006 10:23:23 AM EDT
[#27]
Where on their website did you see that?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2006 2:21:53 PM EDT
[#28]
Bomber,
After hearing about cone erosion I took a look at mine and sure enough it looks like a nuclear mushroom cloud. On Tuesday I sent an Email to John Noveske telling him what mine looked like and he responded that same day saying he would send me an upgrade cone ASAP. Yesterday I got a UPS Confirmation Email with a delivery date for my replacment cone. Noveske never asked for my old one back so I wouldn't be without. That's GREAT SERVICE. MadDog 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2006 6:34:30 PM EDT
[#29]
DID SOMEBODY SAY 12.5" ???
 WES GRANT M.S.T.N. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2006 12:30:10 PM EDT
[#30]
10.3"
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2006 4:57:30 PM EDT
[#31]
7.5"
MadDog 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2006 6:19:55 PM EDT
[#32]
So, just wondering, Arsenal Bulgaria designed this flash suppressor and now Noveske gets to patent it in the USA?
Never thought I'd see the day that the AR guys were flipping out over anything Kalashnikov.... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2006 9:05:41 PM EDT
[#33]
Interesting observation... the back story is sort of funny really, the idea to run an expansion chamber on a short barreled AR predates John's work by many years; in the 70s there were a few different attempts, in fact the moderator for the XM177E2 met its demise due to the fact that it was primarily an expansion chamber and therefore met the legal definition of a sound supressor (the actual attenuation is only a couple of dB). When the AKS-74U was introduced to American weapons designers, some did in fact work with one of the AK flash hider/expansion chamber devices on short barreled ARs, but they were not at all popular as they "looked to soviet" for many people's taste -- keep in mind that things were still not all warm and fuzzy with us and Ivan yet... So a few other designs were hammered out and proved to wrok pretty well -- this may have begat gas trap ideas, different people have different thoughts on this. So, as do the times change huh? And everything old is new again... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2006 7:18:57 AM EDT
[#34]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2006 7:21:42 AM EDT
[#35]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2006 9:02:50 AM EDT
[#36]
I don't think the Noveske Bulgarian Clone Compensator is "patented", but if anything the application is pending, or he’s claiming a patent under a provisional means. I patent office will probably approve most of his claims, but not realizing the design is "Public Domain" do to "Prior Art". So in other words, Noveske may get a patent, but he may not protect it because of the Bulgarians did it already. Yes, Noveske can change the method of mounting the end cap or re-design the conical baffle, making it different then the original. With minor changes such as those, the Noveske system would be more patentable. My concern is the whole other purpose of legality. The Noveske system has two design features that are similar to a sound suppressor; one, an expansion chamber, two, a conical baffle to displace the gases internally. Noveske's intention was for the system to be used as an flash hider and a muzzle booster/expansion chamber. The minute someone uses the device as a sound moderator, the intention of the device changes. With a new intention of the device, the ATF will rule differently on the allowance of Noveske to continue in manufacturing and or selling his muzzle device. wp |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2006 9:16:20 AM EDT
[#37]
I see what you're saying. AK guys have been putting them on their rifles for years with no issues (legally), mostly on registered SBR's and now as pistols. I just find it really amusing that AR guys who usually have nothing but ill to say regarding ANYTHING AK are now falling all overthemselves with these. Don't get me wrong, I think it's great, I just find it funny. themadhatter's........... 
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2006 5:34:43 PM EDT
[#38]
Yes, the idea is far from being new. On an AKSU-74 application, the muzzle booster is far from being a problem. The problem that Noveske may be facing is those that mount the Noveske's system on rimfire pistols or rifles to help reduce the noise level. Unfortunately, the first person that changes the intention of the Noveske's muzzle booster will change the category/classification of its purpose. In other words, Noveske may have to recall 200 plus units and register them as a NFA weapon. Those that don't comply will be felons. It's a shame our country has laws on suppressors. By not using suppressors, we (as shooters) violate OSHA standards every time we shoot. I wonder if the US will realize how stupid suppressor laws are. Someday we may be like the Fins or the Limeys and save our ears, legally! WP |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2006 11:43:06 PM EDT
[#39]
The Noveske device will likely retain it's ATF classification regardless of what someone else does. If I modify the device, I am breaking the law. The ATF are actually pretty reasonable here, w/ the exception of FALs maybe
. If ATF has issued a letter classifying the device as a FH, not a suppressor, then so be it. Someone who modifies it has ceated a new 'thing', and it alone is subject to ATF scrutiny.ATF evals consider the device presented as-is, and for 'ready conversion' to something else. Making a silk purse out of a sow's ear is not very easy with this FH. To make it a suppressor, it'd have to fail the tests already prescribed by orders regarding sound suppression. Those tests are quite specific about placement of the very sophisticated microphones to evaluate the dB changes a FH imposes on a muzzle. Unless you can demonstrate that the Noveske fails, then all this specualtion is moot. If someone changes the Noveske into 'their' device, they alone would have to prove that they are in compliance. Noveske already has. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 5:07:54 AM EDT
[#40]
Historically, there have been examples of the ATF determining that he "purpose" of something has changed, and therefore what it is viewed as being changed -- you seem familiar with FT's testing methods, so you you should also know that the ATF does not "approve" devices... they simply issue opinion or determination; and said determination can be very specific, such as: "submitted sample X123, when used in the prescribed manor and under the intended conditions..." The words "ATF Approved" are just marketing hype... the only suggestion that they make from a legal stand point is that such-and-such device does not attenuate sound sufficiently "when used on a 5.56Nato rilfe with a 11.5" barrel" -- but, such-and-such device *may* fail the same test on the end of a 16" 10/22 barrel? Remember the debates and people in the industry asking other people not to make AR pistols in 7.62X39? Once someone did, then all 7.62X39 ammo became *pistol* ammo... and we know the rest of the story. The purpose had changed... Yes, the ATF is very reasonable with things, I think that most people that talk smack about them are simply repeating something they heard in Joe' Gun Shop and really have no personal experience with the ATF... but the bottom line is this, the ATF has changed their minds on things, especially when the purpose for the device changes -- one example from not too long ago was another muzzle brake that they came back and classified as a suppresor. Now to counter your theory I will offer you this: I was told recently by a member of this board that they have a baffle stack that John made, that replaces the front cap and cone -- said baffle stack is *designed* to work as a suppressor... John himself posted on this thread on 9-20-05
So, the deal is that once that baffle stack was made, ALL of the devices became suppressor tubes, good thing they are already serialized huh? |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 6:37:18 AM EDT
[#41]
Exactly what I was thinking once I had my hands on a KFH. Would love to see pics soon! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 7:07:30 AM EDT
[#42]
I agree, it would be a neat addition and has potential, but as a NFA item. I totally agree with what Gunzilla states an I believe that some of Noveske's customers are or will change the intent of the "Flashhider" someday. This may be a future can of worms. wp |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2006 1:52:18 AM EDT
[#43]
  
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2006 5:45:15 AM EDT
[#44]
MSTN,
Are you using a washer between the KFH and the barrel shoulder? I kind of looks that way from the bottom series of pictures. The reason I ask is because John Naveske told me not to use any washer when I mounted mine. He said to just screw it on and torque it down. MadDog 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2006 5:49:00 AM EDT
[#45]
I've been using a washer and it perfectly "times" the logo. Bomber |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2006 9:30:11 AM EDT
[#46]
YOU USE A CRUSH WASHER WITH THE KX3 BUT NOT WITH THE KFH, SHOWN HERE. NO, BUT I DO USE A FEW THOUSANDTHS WORTH OF SHIMS TO TIME THE KFH LIKE I WANT IT. WES GRANT MSTN.BIZ |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2006 11:34:45 AM EDT
[#47]
My replacment cone just came in today from Noveske. It is not made from stainless like the last cone but instead I think it is made from the same steel as the body of the KFH. I measured the difference in length between the two and it looks like the old cone lost about 1/8" due to flame cutting. I didn't even have to send my old one back.
Great Service by Noveske, MadDog
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2006 1:35:10 PM EDT
[#48]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2006 3:10:47 PM EDT
[#49]
I was wondering about shimming my KFH too, because I thought that it wasn't allowed! However, when mine is just screwed on there is a gap between the end of the barrel and where it would seat against the FH. When I removed it after a few trips to the range, there was alot of build up in that gap. do I need to remedy this? Seems that it will eventually be a problem. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2006 6:59:49 PM EDT
[#50]
YOU GUYS WHO ACTUALLY SHOOT .... AND THEN CLEAN YOUR GUNS ....
I DON'T THINK IT WILL AMOUNT TO A PROBLEM. ONE TURN OF THE 1/2-28 THREADS IS 0.036". HOW MUCH OF A GAP IS IT? GOT A KNIGHT'S M4 QD COMP SHIM KIT ??? WES GRANT M.S.T.N. |
|
|
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
