User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
MS, USA
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 1:44:34 PM EDT
I’ve got a m4sd2 and a Recce 7 that I want to convert to the 1375x24 threads, so I can standardize on the rearden plan b devices that my DDC cans are using.
Has anyone used ECCO to convert their Reece and m4sd2 cans? Just looking for feedback. |
|
|
IA, USA
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 2:23:54 PM EDT
[Last Edit: kirbykid25]
[#1]
Not the suppressor you mentioned or mount setup, but I had Ecco cut the keymo off my sandman and convert it over to HUB so I could run a griffin dual lok adapter.
Couldn’t recommend Ecco enough. Turned out great and excellent communication throughout the entire process. I’m sure they’ll get you taken care of and that you’ll be happy. I though the price was very very reasonable for the work done too. |
|
|
CO, USA
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 3:21:52 PM EDT
[#2]
Sdn-6 converted to Hub and I’m very impressed with the results and the customer service. Do it now.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 4:17:57 PM EDT
[#3]
Both models are listed on their site as ones they can do conversions on. https://www.eccomachine.net/product/bravo-conversion-service/
As others have mentioned, Ecco conversions are great. |
|
|
|
MS, USA
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 11:23:09 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Mecha_Loopy: Both models are listed on their site as ones they can do conversions on. https://www.eccomachine.net/product/bravo-conversion-service/ As others have mentioned, Ecco conversions are great. I know it is listed on the website. I was hoping someone here might have converted those cans and had some feedback. I don’t doubt ECCO’s work. |
|
|
MS, USA
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 11:24:03 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By kirbykid25: Not the suppressor you mentioned or mount setup, but I had Ecco cut the keymo off my sandman and convert it over to HUB so I could run a griffin dual lok adapter. Couldn’t recommend Ecco enough. Turned out great and excellent communication throughout the entire process. I’m sure they’ll get you taken care of and that you’ll be happy. I though the price was very very reasonable for the work done too. Nice |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 4:44:53 PM EDT
[#6]
There is no way I'd cut the Griffin taper mounts out of those cans to run a Plan B in them. You could for a fraction of the cost screw the plan a into you Diligent and use the Griffin taper mount muzzle devices instead. Ecco does awesome work, I love what they did to my SDN6, but that was a dead end mount system, but there isn't enough advantage in the Plan B/Reardon to standardize on it by cutting up two good cans to match another can you could simply thread another mount into.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 5:47:32 PM EDT
[Last Edit: bradpierson26]
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By turbobrick: There is no way I'd cut the Griffin taper mounts out of those cans to run a Plan B in them. You could for a fraction of the cost screw the plan an into you Diligent and use the Griffin taper mount muzzle devices instead. Ecco does awesome work, I love what they did to my SDN6, but that was a dead end mount system, but there isn't enough advantage in the Plan B/Reardon to standardize on it by cutting up two good cans to match another can you could simply thread another mount into. This I think you’re doing it wrong, OP, but you didn’t really ask It’s probably going to make a chunky can heavier. Admittedly I’m a PlanA fan, and cost you $200 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 11:48:20 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jsha22lr: I know it is listed on the website. I was hoping someone here might have converted those cans and had some feedback. I don’t doubt ECCO’s work. I would be surprised if many have had it done for the Recce. Maybe for the M4SD2, but it seems like people who have those often like that mounting system as a way of avoiding expensive suppressor mounts and HUB adapters. As others mentioned, there isn't a lot of reason to pay to convert from the Recce's taper mount (same as Plan A) to Plan B. Similar systems, and while the wrench flats are nice, the cost of the conversion I would think would prevent people from spending on an incremental gain. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2024 1:04:19 AM EDT
[#9]
We've cut off a handful of Griffin taper mounts over the years, but most Griffin conversions were Gate-Lok or the threaded collar type A2 flash hider mount.
There is zero advantage to cherry bomb pattern over Griffin taper. If I were choosing between those two myself, I'd go Griffin. Darren (Rearden) makes really good stuff, but so does Austin, and in a lot more thread patterns. And I personally prefer rear taper, that's why our own Gyrex system is such. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2024 8:22:01 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By bradpierson26: This I think you’re doing it wrong, OP, but you didn’t really ask It’s probably going to make a chunky can heavier. Admittedly I’m a PlanA fan, and cost you $200 Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By bradpierson26: Originally Posted By turbobrick: There is no way I'd cut the Griffin taper mounts out of those cans to run a Plan B in them. You could for a fraction of the cost screw the plan an into you Diligent and use the Griffin taper mount muzzle devices instead. Ecco does awesome work, I love what they did to my SDN6, but that was a dead end mount system, but there isn't enough advantage in the Plan B/Reardon to standardize on it by cutting up two good cans to match another can you could simply thread another mount into. This I think you’re doing it wrong, OP, but you didn’t really ask It’s probably going to make a chunky can heavier. Admittedly I’m a PlanA fan, and cost you $200 And I would venture to guess that it would void Griffin’s warranty. You would be better off switching to Plan A adapters and muzzle devices. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2024 9:30:44 AM EDT
[#11]
I, too, was thinking this is a very strange conversion plan. The Griffin taper is as good as, or better than, any other taper mount, and the M4SD would normally be bought specifically for its mount.
I standardized on exactly the two mounts OP is trying to get rid of. If I were thinking of converting to something else, I’d be examining myself for the source of influence rather than checking my bank balance for funds. |
|
|
|
MS, USA
|
Posted: 4/28/2024 11:47:57 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By bradpierson26: This I think you’re doing it wrong, OP, but you didn’t really ask It’s probably going to make a chunky can heavier. Admittedly I’m a PlanA fan, and cost you $200 I don't like the plan a. I'm glad it works for you, but I get carbon lock on mine every range trip, even with the anti-seize GA recommends. |
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 4/28/2024 11:54:25 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jsha22lr: I don't like the plan a. I'm glad it works for you, but I get carbon lock on mine every range trip, even with the anti-seize GA recommends. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jsha22lr: Originally Posted By bradpierson26: This I think you’re doing it wrong, OP, but you didn’t really ask It’s probably going to make a chunky can heavier. Admittedly I’m a PlanA fan, and cost you $200 I don't like the plan a. I'm glad it works for you, but I get carbon lock on mine every range trip, even with the anti-seize GA recommends. Just out of curiosity, are you using Griffin muzzle brakes on the hosts that get carbon-locked? |
|
|
MS, USA
|
Posted: 4/28/2024 11:56:19 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 1168RGR: I, too, was thinking this is a very strange conversion plan. The Griffin taper is as good as, or better than, any other taper mount, and the M4SD would normally be bought specifically for its mount. I standardized on exactly the two mounts OP is trying to get rid of. If I were thinking of converting to something else, I’d be examining myself for the source of influence rather than checking my bank balance for funds. It's not a money issue, so I'm not sure why you decided to bring that up. I get carbon lock on my plan a mounts after every range trip even with the anti-seize ga recommends. As for the M4sd2, I only have one rifle that has a gate lock on it, and I would like to have all my rifles share the same mount. The latch on the can itself keeps coming out when you disengage it. |
|
|
MS, USA
|
Posted: 4/28/2024 11:56:52 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By KalmanPhilter: Just out of curiosity, are you using Griffin muzzle brakes on the hosts that get carbon-locked? One break, one flash hider, and one flash comp. |
|
|
MS, USA
|
Posted: 4/28/2024 11:58:41 AM EDT
[Last Edit: jsha22lr]
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Luny421: And I would venture to guess that it would void Griffin’s warranty. You would be better off switching to Plan A adapters and muzzle devices. I honestly don't care about the warranty at this point, considering years ago I asked about the latch falling out of the m4sd2 when it is disengaged and never got a response. |
|
|
MS, USA
|
Posted: 4/28/2024 12:03:03 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By turbobrick: There is no way I'd cut the Griffin taper mounts out of those cans to run a Plan B in them. You could for a fraction of the cost screw the plan a into you Diligent and use the Griffin taper mount muzzle devices instead. Ecco does awesome work, I love what they did to my SDN6, but that was a dead end mount system, but there isn't enough advantage in the Plan B/Reardon to standardize on it by cutting up two good cans to match another can you could simply thread another mount into. Cost is not the issue. The issue is I experience carbon lock with the plan a every range trip even with the anti-seize, and I want the m4sd2 to share mounts with everything else. I've yet to experience carbon lock with the plan b mounts. |
|
|
MS, USA
|
Posted: 4/28/2024 12:04:37 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ECCO_Machine: We've cut off a handful of Griffin taper mounts over the years, but most Griffin conversions were Gate-Lok or the threaded collar type A2 flash hider mount. There is zero advantage to cherry bomb pattern over Griffin taper. If I were choosing between those two myself, I'd go Griffin. Darren (Rearden) makes really good stuff, but so does Austin, and in a lot more thread patterns. And I personally prefer rear taper, that's why our own Gyrex system is such. Good to know. Personally, I have yet to have a plan b carbon lock like I have a plan a. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2024 12:11:51 PM EDT
[#19]
Strange. I have a ton of plan A mounts and am a pretty high volume shooter. I have never had any of my plan A cans carbon lock. I don't use the anti seize though, so maybe that makes a difference.
|
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 4/28/2024 12:20:46 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jsha22lr: One break, one flash hider, and one flash comp. That blows my theory that brakes are dirtier at the mounting interface. I use Griffin 3-prong flash hiders on short 300 blackout without issue, but I’m not mag dumping or putting hundreds of rounds into the can before dismounting. With Paladin brakes those are on hosts with low volume fire and longer barrels (bolt guns, or something like a 6.5 Grendel working out past 500 where rates and strings of fire are minimal). Thread-in mounts have their own issues. I’d probably put the mod money into more cans even though I’ve been a long standing & vocal proponent of mount modularity. That was driven by OOS supply issues and obsolescence and thread patterns. The Plan B options that exist now from a variety of sources are a good situation. |
|
|
MS, USA
|
Posted: 4/28/2024 12:20:47 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Tug153: Strange. I have a ton of plan A mounts and am a pretty high volume shooter. I have never had any of my plan A cans carbon lock. I don't use the anti seize though, so maybe that makes a difference. I tried not using anti-sieze and it still locked up on me. It’s a good mount with very minimal poi/poa shift. I just have carbon lock with it, and I don’t get that with the plan b mounts on my other cans. 🤷♂️. Not a hater. Just want to switch to someone that, FOR ME, works better. |
|
|
MS, USA
|
Posted: 4/28/2024 12:29:17 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By KalmanPhilter: That blows my theory that brakes are dirtier at the mounting interface. I use Griffin 3-prong flash hiders on short 300 blackout without issue, but I’m not mag dumping or putting hundreds of rounds into the can before dismounting. With Paladin brakes those are on hosts with low volume fire and longer barrels (bolt guns, or something like a 6.5 Grendel working out past 500 where rates and strings of fire are minimal). Thread-in mounts have their own issues. I’d probably put the mod money into more cans even though I’ve been a long standing & vocal proponent of mount modularity. That was driven by OOS supply issues and obsolescence and thread patterns. The Plan B options that exist now from a variety of sources are a good situation. Mount modularity is one of the reasons why I wanna go to the HUB pattern. Out side of the carbon lock, I don’t have any complaints with the plan a system. Very minimal poi shift and they are effective as standalone muzzle devices. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2024 9:20:20 PM EDT
[#23]
Originally Posted By jsha22lr: It's not a money issue, so I'm not sure why you decided to bring that up. I get carbon lock on my plan a mounts after every range trip even with the anti-seize ga recommends. As for the M4sd2, I only have one rifle that has a gate lock on it, and I would like to have all my rifles share the same mount. The latch on the can itself keeps coming out when you disengage it. |
|
|
|
MS, USA
|
Posted: 4/28/2024 10:53:18 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 1168RGR: Because it costs money to convert them that could instead be spent on ammo, socks, or booze. I don’t doubt your experience, but it diverges greatly from my own. I shoot a good bit, only use antiseize the first time I mount it, and almost never clean my mounts. I won’t say that you’re doing something wrong, but if I don’t get carbon lock, then you could avoid it, too, without spending a stack of money and time away from your cans. We’re doing something different, you and I. I don’t know what else to tell you then. I have cleaned the mounts, let them get dirty, can apply or not apply anti-seize and still get carbon lock. The interior is clean with the appropriate size brush. I tighten it the same amount as I do the plan b mounts. The can isn’t cross threaded. I had to soak it in Kroil to loosen it the last time. I’ve got other cans, and the Recce 7 and m4sd2 aren’t the main ones I use so it’s not like they are gonna be missed if it is gone for a while. That’s not a point of concern. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2024 12:36:39 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jsha22lr: Cost is not the issue. The issue is I experience carbon lock with the plan a every range trip even with the anti-seize, and I want the m4sd2 to share mounts with everything else. I've yet to experience carbon lock with the plan b mounts. My SDN6 converted to hub by Ecco has a Plan B in it since it lives on a Mini Fix, that and the Howa 6arc that has a Jumbo Shrimp dedicated to it are the only standard size Cherry Bombs I have, my Porq Chop uses the XL Cherry Bomb. I like the system, its always takes a little extra twist to break free especially with the Howa, but comes off clean. I wish there were as many threads available as Plan A has. That being said, I have a ton of Griffin taper mounts, and have for around 10 years. Sometimes I feel like there might be a little carbon lock going on, but it always turns out to be nothing. Are you putting the anti-seize on the taper, or on the threads, or both? I've found if you put a good amount on the threads, then run the can in and out a bit to really work it into the threads, the results are better. |
|
|
|
NC, USA
|
Posted: 4/29/2024 7:06:00 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ECCO_Machine: And I personally prefer rear taper, that's why our own Gyrex system is such. I'm curious. Why do you refer the rear taper? Is it ease of machining, or is there a functional benefit to it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2024 8:39:52 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jsha22lr: I don’t know what else to tell you then. I have cleaned the mounts, let them get dirty, can apply or not apply anti-seize and still get carbon lock. The interior is clean with the appropriate size brush. I tighten it the same amount as I do the plan b mounts. The can isn’t cross threaded. I had to soak it in Kroil to loosen it the last time. I’ve got other cans, and the Recce 7 and m4sd2 aren’t the main ones I use so it’s not like they are gonna be missed if it is gone for a while. That’s not a point of concern. We're not doubting your experience, just trying to understand it better. Its not normally a problem reported with taper mounts. Now by "carbon lock" do you mean you can't remove the silencers by hand? If this is the case, sometimes you do need to put some ass into it, but mine all eventually come off by hand. Might also mean you are over tightening during install. It just needs to be snugged on, not ugga dugga'd. or the MD is coming off and stuck in the silencer? If this is the case, did you use the recommended torque on the MD? The only problem I've had in years of taper mount use, is with non-griffin adapters (think SDTA form 1 adapter) or the Plan-A coming loose from the silencer (fixed with rocksett). |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2024 9:21:16 AM EDT
[Last Edit: ECCO_Machine]
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dmk0210: @ECCO_Machine I'm curious. Why do you refer the rear taper? Is it ease of machining, or is there a functional benefit to it? No difference in manufacturing, Front taper dictates that the large end of your taper must be under thread minor. Rear taper allows whatever taper geometry you want regardless of thread size. The small taper surface on cherry bomb pattern means the bore diameter ahead of it is critical (.787" +/-.001), which sometimes leads to carbon buildup causing difficult removal, having to twist and rock the can to scrape it off. They also cannot support threads larger than 11/16 without putting a large body behind the rest of the muzzle device. We can put 3/4" threads fully inside the body of Gyrex This is a cut off cherry bomb I use along with thread and pin gauges for checking cherry bomb adapters compared to a Gyrex brake. The difference in taper engagement needs no explanation  Gyrex next to a Rugged muzzle device and a GA muzzle device. All 3 use 1" threads, 1-12 for Rugged and Gyrex, 1-20 for GA. 
|
|
|
|
CO, USA
|
Posted: 4/29/2024 1:41:45 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ECCO_Machine: No difference in manufacturing, Front taper dictates that the large end of your taper must be under thread minor. Rear taper allows whatever taper geometry you want regardless of thread size. The small taper surface on cherry bomb pattern means the bore diameter ahead of it is critical (.787" +/-.001), which sometimes leads to carbon buildup causing difficult removal, having to twist and rock the can to scrape it off. They also cannot support threads larger than 11/16 without putting a large body behind the rest of the muzzle device. We can put 3/4" threads fully inside the body of Gyrex This is a cut off cherry bomb I use along with thread and pin gauges for checking cherry bomb adapters compared to a Gyrex brake. The difference in taper engagement needs no explanation https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/583261/20210902_212901-3201103.jpg Gyrex next to a Rugged muzzle device and a GA muzzle device. All 3 use 1" threads, 1-12 for Rugged and Gyrex, 1-20 for GA. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/583261/20221222_191729-3201106.jpg What real advantage does the large tapered surface area provide? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2024 7:43:15 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Tug153: Strange. I have a ton of plan A mounts and am a pretty high volume shooter. I have never had any of my plan A cans carbon lock. I don't use the anti seize though, so maybe that makes a difference. Same. Comps, brakes, FHs, never had an issue. I also don’t wrench them down when attaching. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2024 7:45:59 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By stevelish: What real advantage does the large tapered surface area provide? Larger surface area, more engagement, less torque required to secure. |
|
|
|
SC, USA
|
Posted: 4/29/2024 8:31:02 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ECCO_Machine: And I personally prefer rear taper, that's why our own Gyrex system is such. What’s your reasoning? I’m not disagreeing at all, I use plan A and GA mounts but I see a lot of “experts” constantly spouting about forward taper placement with no substance behind it. Never had any issues with a griffin/rear taper. Only mount (of another style) I’ve ever locked up was because I gorilla tightened it and let it cool all the way down |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2024 8:45:17 PM EDT
[#33]
Rear taper provides more surface contact between the muzzle device and mount. Front taper prevents carbon from getting on threads. Both are good from my understanding.
|
|
|
|
CO, USA
|
Posted: 4/29/2024 10:43:12 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Luny421: Larger surface area, more engagement, less torque required to secure. That was my inclination, but wasn't sure. Does that equate to more torque required to remove? |
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 4/30/2024 2:56:30 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By stevelish: That was my inclination, but wasn't sure. Does that equate to more torque required to remove? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By stevelish: Originally Posted By Luny421: Larger surface area, more engagement, less torque required to secure. That was my inclination, but wasn't sure. Does that equate to more torque required to remove? Larger threads are more robust and move mount linearly faster with less mechanical advantage. So the taper angle with larger threads has to be made more acute to create the locking torque advantage. It roughly balances out torque wise (between Plan A & Plan B). If you look at older taper mounts like AAC 51T or SiCo ASR the taper angle is bigger and mismatched relative to course threads so they need a secondary lock. With really fine threads and low mass and low muzzle impulse (rimfire cans) you can get away with a square shoulder and 28 threads per inch and hold torque. With tapers removal torque isn’t just angle it also relates to how much input torque is applied and fineness of mating surface finish. Due to friction breaking torque on acute enough tapers will always be more than setting torque. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2024 6:05:08 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1168RGR]
[#36]
Quote HistoryFront taper prevents carbon from getting on threads.  On the Griffin mounts to the left and right, you can easily see the writing between the taper and the threads. The closed tine mount has seen a few thousand rounds and has never been cleaned. The tactical comp on the left has seen 5 digit rounds, and cleaned on a drill press twice. The writing between the threads and taper is light tan; I’ve never cleaned that area, because there is no need. The one in the center, though, that one really demonstrates that it’s a non-issue. It’s not a Griffin, rather an OCL one (Allen clone) that also puts the threads ahead of the taper. The dab of white anti-seize clearly visible on the threads was applied a couple hundred rounds ago when new. Notice how clean and shiny the polished raw stainless is between the threads and taper…it’s also not been cleaned, yet it isn’t dirty. The taper is for alignment and retention, not for sealing. The whole thing about that is a made up internet problem spread by people with no relevant experience. But it briefs well as a hypothetical problem, so people that don’t know better are easily convinced. |
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 4/30/2024 10:04:33 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 1168RGR: That’s mostly internet lore. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/563710/IMG_6635-3201833.jpg On the Griffin mounts to the left and right, you can easily see the writing between the taper and the threads. The closed tine mount has seen a few thousand rounds and has never been cleaned. The tactical comp on the left has seen 5 digit rounds, and cleaned on a drill press twice. The writing between the threads and taper is light tan: I’ve never cleaned that area, because there is no need. The one in the center, though, that one really demonstrates that it’s a non-issue. It’s not a Griffin, rather an OCL one (Allen clone) that also puts the threads ahead of the taper. The dab of white anti-seize clearly visible on the threads was applied a couple hundred rounds ago when new. Notice how clean and shiny the polished raw stainless is between the threads and taper…it’s also not been cleaned, yet it isn’t dirty. The taper is for alignment and retention, not for sealing. The whole thing about that is a made up internet problem by people with no relevant experience. It briefs well, though, as a hypothetical problem. Great photo examples. Tapered-shoulder barrels also work really nice and are very weight efficient. The Plan B or Xeno are alternatives but mostly variations of the same mechanism / approach. They all work well enough. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2024 11:02:20 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 1168RGR: That’s mostly internet lore. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/563710/IMG_6635-3201833.jpg On the Griffin mounts to the left and right, you can easily see the writing between the taper and the threads. The closed tine mount has seen a few thousand rounds and has never been cleaned. The tactical comp on the left has seen 5 digit rounds, and cleaned on a drill press twice. The writing between the threads and taper is light tan; I’ve never cleaned that area, because there is no need. The one in the center, though, that one really demonstrates that it’s a non-issue. It’s not a Griffin, rather an OCL one (Allen clone) that also puts the threads ahead of the taper. The dab of white anti-seize clearly visible on the threads was applied a couple hundred rounds ago when new. Notice how clean and shiny the polished raw stainless is between the threads and taper…it’s also not been cleaned, yet it isn’t dirty. The taper is for alignment and retention, not for sealing. The whole thing about that is a made up internet problem spread by people with no relevant experience. But it briefs well as a hypothetical problem, so people that don’t know better are easily convinced. Fair enough. Seems both systems are good and neither really has much of a downside then? I know the only reason I fall into the Plan B camp is because I prefer Rearden’s products. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2024 12:19:19 PM EDT
[#39]
Originally Posted By KalmanPhilter: Great photo examples. Originally Posted By eagarminuteman: Fair enough. Seems both systems are good and neither really has much of a downside then? I think TBAC’s explanation for why they put the taper behind the thread was better retention, but I don’t remember for sure. There are a few good explanations for why the engineers at several companies feel/felt that it is better to do it this way, but all we have to know as users is that it works, and works well. I haven’t yet heard a reason to do it the other way that has any basis in practicality, just a solution looking for a problem that resonates with the “gun people”, which are often fearful of hypothetical scenarios to the detriment of practical ones. |
|
|
|
NC, USA
|
Posted: 4/30/2024 12:22:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: dmk0210]
[#40]
Really great thread! A lot of good info on mounts.
 |
|
|
MS, USA
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 5:27:50 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By IHTFP08: We're not doubting your experience, just trying to understand it better. Its not normally a problem reported with taper mounts. Now by "carbon lock" do you mean you can't remove the silencers by hand? If this is the case, sometimes you do need to put some ass into it, but mine all eventually come off by hand. Might also mean you are over tightening during install. It just needs to be snugged on, not ugga dugga'd. or the MD is coming off and stuck in the silencer? If this is the case, did you use the recommended torque on the MD? The only problem I've had in years of taper mount use, is with non-griffin adapters (think SDTA form 1 adapter) or the Plan-A coming loose from the silencer (fixed with rocksett). I tighten it the silencer hand tight, just like the videos and manuals say to do. My muzzle devices have been installed with the 35lbs of torque on clean threads. I use the anti-seize on the taper surface only, just like the product says. I know it takes more torque to remove a silencer, but I have to use the armorers tool ga sold to take it off. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 8:08:15 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Green0]
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jsha22lr: I tighten it the silencer hand tight, just like the videos and manuals say to do. My muzzle devices have been installed with the 35lbs of torque on clean threads. I use the anti-seize on the taper surface only, just like the product says. I know it takes more torque to remove a silencer, but I have to use the armorers tool ga sold to take it off. You can put the white food grade 2300f anti-seize on the threads and taper of the silencer mount only. (That part is less likely to attract crap and be wiping off on gunbags and cases). Some guys are really strong and just tighten the taper mounts so crazy with their hands that they kind of seize them up. Sometimes that also involves snap tightening the can which is not required. Usually those guys are bodybuilders who kind of as part of the game overdue everything like handshakes that articulate bones in peoples hands. Part of the deal with a system that requires 1.5 times install torque to remove, is that if you apply all the force you physically can to install, you will not be able to remove that can without tools or an extra hand and fixturing the rifle between your knees. |
|
|
|
NC, USA
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 9:31:23 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Green0: Part of the deal with a system that requires 1.5 times install torque to remove, is that if you apply all the force you physically can to install, you will not be able to remove that can without tools or an extra hand and fixturing the rifle between your knees. Good point! LOL |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 10:40:03 PM EDT
[#44]
Any chance these are being installed/removed or attempting to do so while hot?
|
|
|
|
MS, USA
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 11:00:45 PM EDT
[Last Edit: jsha22lr]
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 1168RGR: Any chance these are being installed/removed or attempting to do so while hot? No. I was burned ONCE when my leg touched a hot can when I slung a rifle. I wait for the cans to cool down before removing them. |
|
|
MS, USA
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 11:04:23 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Green0: You can put the white food grade 2300f anti-seize on the threads and taper of the silencer mount only. (That part is less likely to attract crap and be wiping off on gunbags and cases). Some guys are really strong and just tighten the taper mounts so crazy with their hands that they kind of seize them up. Sometimes that also involves snap tightening the can which is not required. Usually those guys are bodybuilders who kind of as part of the game overdue everything like handshakes that articulate bones in peoples hands. Part of the deal with a system that requires 1.5 times install torque to remove, is that if you apply all the force you physically can to install, you will not be able to remove that can without tools or an extra hand and fixturing the rifle between your knees. I only do hand tight. No snap tightening, no extra torque, I thread it on with a loose grip till I feel it tighten down. That’s literally all I do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 11:14:37 PM EDT
[#47]
There is a 1” oateys pipe fitting brush available on our website or at Home Depot. That can be used to clean the threads on the can, before applying the anti-seize.
It may make sense to try to grab one, clean up your threads, and use the anti seize on the threads and taper and see if that helps. About the only other thing I could think of is to look for taper or thread damage and possibly even to consider getting it into customer service to see if they can find the issue. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2024 4:27:13 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jsha22lr: I tighten it the silencer hand tight, just like the videos and manuals say to do. My muzzle devices have been installed with the 35lbs of torque on clean threads. I use the anti-seize on the taper surface only, just like the product says. I know it takes more torque to remove a silencer, but I have to use the armorers tool ga sold to take it off. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2024 8:06:31 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jsha22lr: No. I was burned ONCE when my leg touched a hot can when I slung a rifle. I wait for the cans to cool down before removing them. I’m actually a bit surprised at how much y’all maintain these things, though. One of the reasons I use these is that they seem very tolerant of neglect with just a quick wipe to remove obvious dirt/sand/wood, if present, before mounting. |
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 5/3/2024 8:30:44 AM EDT
[#50]
Regardless of what actual mount system the OP wants to use, And the debate will run ad infinitum, I think the more relevant consideration is whether it is a good idea to covert the suppressor to HUB.
Is there a disadvantage to HUB compatibility? Does it lock him into a brands mount system? |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
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.
