User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/17/2024 9:59:28 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Ronnoc]
Not my channel, wish I had all those silencers! I don't even know how to post a YouTube video!
  Suppressor Back Pressure Test: Huxwrx, SilencerCo, Dead Air, KGM, Surefire, & More A good suppressor isn't determined just by sound reduction, back pressure plays a huge roll in how your rifle will function (or not function) once a suppressor is attached. In this video we tested 22 different suppressors with a 16" AR15 using PMC XTAC 5.56 55gr to determine the amount of back pressure each suppressor creates. We utilized the Riflespeed gas control system, which allows 12 levels of adjustment, to determine the amount of adjustment needed to reliably obtain bolt hold open. See the list below for a full list of all the suppressors tested. Full List Of All Suppressors Tested: Huxwrx Flow 556K Huxwrx HX-QD 556 Huxwrx Ventum 762 Surefire RC3 Rugged Alaskan360Ti KGM R-6 KGM R556 Dead Air Nomad 30 Dead Air Nomad L Surefire 212 Mini Rugged Razor 556 AAC Mini-4 AAC 762 SDN-6 SilencerCo Omega 300 Otter Creek Labs Polonium Otter Creek Labs Polonium K Otter Creek Labs MK12 Innovative Arms Grunt-M Mini Dead Air Nomad TI Dead Air Nomad LTI SilencerCo Omega 30 Cal ASR SilencerCo Omega 5.56 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2024 10:56:34 PM EDT
[#1]
Thanks for sharing.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2024 11:27:43 PM EDT
[#2]
Part 2 coming
 Coming Soon: Suppressor Back Pressure Testing Part 2: Testing 11" SBR Back Pressure Performance The Banish 223 did not fare well with high back pressure starting at 2:41. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 12:10:53 AM EDT
[#3]
OP, are you Silencer Syndicate?
I like where this channel is going. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 12:29:56 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Green0]
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DDS87: OP, are you Silencer Syndicate? I like where this channel is going. Post below I learned a little more so the above is a retracted thought. The harshness on Silencer Central seemed, well harsh, but I don't have any experience ever seeing or hearing a silencer central can anywhere, and have noticed a lot of people do have negative opinions so that might be just a legitimate opinion he holds. |
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 1:45:53 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Green0: Its always more bazaar when its rational to wonder who a channel is associated with. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Green0: Originally Posted By DDS87: OP, are you Silencer Syndicate? I like where this channel is going. Its always more bazaar when its rational to wonder who a channel is associated with. ER Tactical is a training outfit in Phoenix. Like Rooftop Defense they are doing basic empirical testing that relate to what a can user without instrumentation might notice. Another data point. |
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 2:23:08 AM EDT
[#6]
Can you do a YHM Turbo T2?
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 2:28:28 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 556NAT0]
[#7]
No YHM or CGS?
|
|
|
NC, USA
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 6:57:10 AM EDT
[Last Edit: dmk0210]
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By madmedic: Can you do a YHM Turbo T2? Not to look a gift horse in the mouth, but the Turbo T3 and Turbo K RB would be very interesting to see tested. Low back pressure is highly touted by YHM with these versions, after the previous versions being considered to have high back pressure. The Griffin Recce 5 and 5K would also be interesting to see tested. With a Riflespeed gas block, this test would be very easy to reproduce. Hmmm. I may do that this summer. |
|
|
NC, USA
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 7:00:06 AM EDT
[Last Edit: dmk0210]
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 556NAT0: No YHM or CGS? Cool test! I think this is an area that needs much more data and consideration. I see a lot of fan favorites up on the high back pressure end. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 8:22:15 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dmk0210: It looks to me like it was cans he already had on hand. Cool test! I think this is an area that needs much more data and consideration. I see a lot of fan favorites up on the high back pressure end. |
|
|
|
GA, USA
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 9:00:00 AM EDT
[#11]
Very cool stuff, keep it coming, please!
|
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 9:11:38 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Millennial]
[#12]
While back pressure is not a trivial metric for a suppressor, I think it’s a bit overrated because most modern guns people are putting these on either already have built-in gas control or numerous and inexpensive methods of taming excessive gas.
Even mid priced suppressors at the end of the day are going to run you about $700-900 with tax and mount… so if you can add a $20-100 solution to the rifle to tune gas, you can either open up your choices or select a quieter option. Of course there are some situations where if it’s a gun issued to you and you aren’t allowed to modify it, or it’s an older rifle with limited aftermarket support or if you just want to keep your host completely stock… then a suppressors inherent back pressure becomes a bigger factor in the decision. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 9:44:04 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1168RGR]
[#13]
I agree that tuning the rifle helps with backpressure. But there also seems to be a limit. Very high backpressure cans, which usually sound great, will still filth up a gun faster, and be more likely to gas you out, sometimes even after tuning the gun to an extreme. This is fine on bolt guns, of course, or an AR precision gun.
On the opposite of extremes, the very lowest backpressure cans are loud and costly. But they may be appropriate for guns that can’t be tuned, for whatever reason, because they’re still better than no silencer at all. They also might not gas-stack on auto, where backpressure seems to increase within a burst , if that’s a concern. The middle range, of moderate backpressure cans is what is most promising for AR enthusiasts. If one’s barrel has a reasonable gas port size, just throwing a heavier buffer in the gun might be enough for some people that only use it periodically, while other people like myself will choke down the gas at the port and dedicate the gun to silencer use. I like that the review broke the cans into 3 ranges as a qualitative tldr, and also included the quantification for nerds like me. I think all backpressure comparisons should be done this way. Maybe I’ll try to reproduce this test with some of my cans later and an identical (or nearly so) setup. @Ronnoc that’s a midlength, correct? @Prebans…can you toggle this to not archive, please? |
|
|
|
NC, USA
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 10:00:18 AM EDT
[Last Edit: dmk0210]
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Millennial: While back pressure is not a trivial metric for a suppressor, I think it's a bit overrated because most modern guns people are putting these on either already have built-in gas control or numerous and inexpensive methods of taming excessive gas. Even mid priced suppressors at the end of the day are going to run you about $700-900 with tax and mount so if you can add a $20-100 solution to the rifle to tune gas, you can either open up your choices or select a quieter option. Of course there are some situations where if it's a gun issued to you and you aren't allowed to modify it, or it's an older rifle with limited aftermarket support or if you just want to keep your host completely stock then a suppressors inherent back pressure becomes a bigger factor in the decision. Also even though a gun might have a swapable gas plug, a switch on the gas block, or an adjustable gas piston, mostly these are just designed to keep the guns from beating themselves to death when suppressed. So, less overgassed, but still overgassed when suppressed. 1168RGR makes great points above. Back pressure is an unwanted side effect for any semi or full auto. It's always a check in the negative column. Any way to mitigate or reduce it is a check in the positive column. It's not the only factor of course, but it can be just as important as weight, size, muzzle dBs, durability, mount options, price, etc. All of these factors are weighted differently depending on use case and personal preference. Isolating back pressure as a variable in a test is no different than isolating dBs as a variable in a test. People do that all the time while ignore all the other factors. |
|
|
GA, USA
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 10:05:26 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Millennial: While back pressure is not a trivial metric for a suppressor, I think it’s a bit overrated because most modern guns people are putting these on either already have built-in gas control or numerous and inexpensive methods of taming excessive gas. Even mid priced suppressors at the end of the day are going to run you about $700-900 with tax and mount… so if you can add a $20-100 solution to the rifle to tune gas, you can either open up your choices or select a quieter option. Of course there are some situations where if it’s a gun issued to you and you aren’t allowed to modify it, or it’s an older rifle with limited aftermarket support or if you just want to keep your host completely stock… then a suppressors inherent back pressure becomes a bigger factor in the decision. I tuned my 11.5” Turbo setup with a dedicated-suppressed BRT tube, and it made it run smoother like it was supposed to but still gassed me out and was filthy inside the receiver and mags. Tuning isn’t a cure-all for the symptoms of high back pressure in my experience. |
|
|
PA, USA
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 10:52:10 AM EDT
[#16]
The best part of all of this is that it gets the industry to take note, which leads to further innovation, which leads to choices and improved performance.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 11:11:28 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Wangstang]
[#17]
Several years old now but I really appreciate the jig visual and measuring methods:
https://youtube.com/clip/Ugkx9bBIAHaFmYBIjsTMxI7Z8juhzSdS5g8E?si=i8pW4aRzrANea3KU  Attached File |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 12:45:57 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By peachy: I tuned my 11.5” Turbo setup with a dedicated-suppressed BRT tube, and it made it run smoother like it was supposed to but still gassed me out and was filthy inside the receiver and mags. Tuning isn’t a cure-all for the symptoms of high back pressure in my experience. The bore is a bigger hole than the gas tube. |
|
|
AL, USA
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 12:59:49 PM EDT
[Last Edit: anymanusa]
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Millennial: While back pressure is not a trivial metric for a suppressor, I think it’s a bit overrated because most modern guns people are putting these on either already have built-in gas control or numerous and inexpensive methods of taming excessive gas. Even mid priced suppressors at the end of the day are going to run you about $700-900 with tax and mount… so if you can add a $20-100 solution to the rifle to tune gas, you can either open up your choices or select a quieter option. Of course there are some situations where if it’s a gun issued to you and you aren’t allowed to modify it, or it’s an older rifle with limited aftermarket support or if you just want to keep your host completely stock… then a suppressors inherent back pressure becomes a bigger factor in the decision. Not even true. Most guns sold today don't have gas adjustment. You know how I know this? Really easy actually. If we're talking rifles, which we are, AR's are going to rule the roost in sales volume. It's only boutique guns and specialty guns that have adjustment built in. Not your run of the mill guns. I'll tell you why it's not an overrated metric too. It's not overrated because it's great for a guy like me that has dozens and dozens of gun and can simply just put the suppressor on one after the other and shoot, and not have to do a damn thing to the gun. It just works like it should, and it doesn't spray your face with obnoxious poisonous gas. It's really the opposite. An underrated metric. I know. I own one and it's fucking fantastic. And I own a bunch of modern guns as well. High dollar boutique guns in fact, and their gas adjustments are nothing to brag about. Scar: barely adequate for actually adjusting for suppressor. Argument could be made that it is lacking. Bren 2: poor at best. Had to actually buy a gas adjustment block from aftermarket vendor just to get the gun to run reliably from the OEM without a suppressor even attached. Tavor 7: barely adequate FAL: the bees knees. Nearly infinitely adjustable. Adcor 556: I had to buy numerous extra different size gas keys to get this gun to cycle all the different ammo that I have. Adams Arms: 2 position poor adjustment. Not suitable for tuning purposes. Superlative arms: great adjustment ability, but quite a pita to do on the fly. Kind of an ordeal to switch back and forth. Need a special tool also. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 1:04:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: WUPHF]
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DDS87: The bore is a bigger hole than the gas tube. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DDS87: Originally Posted By peachy: I tuned my 11.5” Turbo setup with a dedicated-suppressed BRT tube, and it made it run smoother like it was supposed to but still gassed me out and was filthy inside the receiver and mags. Tuning isn’t a cure-all for the symptoms of high back pressure in my experience. The bore is a bigger hole than the gas tube. Reducing gas at the port (either through an adjustable block, reduced port tube, etc) does have an effect on the amount of blowback the receiver sees through the bore (primary source) just by the simple fact that is slows unlocking time, allowing bore pressures to fall before the bolt unlocks and is vented into the receiver. ETA: That said, backpressure still matters. A lower backpressure can should, at least in my head, mean lower initial bore pressures, which would obviously decrease the amount of blowback you’d see once the bore is vented into the upper receiver. |
|
|
|
GA, USA
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 1:04:54 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DDS87: The bore is a bigger hole than the gas tube. Not sure I see your point? |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 1:16:05 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By WUPHF: Reducing gas at the port (either through an adjustable block, reduced port tube, etc) does have an effect on the amount of blowback the receiver sees through the bore (primary source) just by the simple fact that is slows unlocking time, allowing bore pressures to fall before the bolt unlocks and is vented into the receiver. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By WUPHF: Reducing gas at the port (either through an adjustable block, reduced port tube, etc) does have an effect on the amount of blowback the receiver sees through the bore (primary source) just by the simple fact that is slows unlocking time, allowing bore pressures to fall before the bolt unlocks and is vented into the receiver. It absolutely helps, I can see this when I use my WAR upper. The LMT E carrier theoretically helps as well. It just doesn't mitigate all the disadvantages of a high back pressure suppressor. Originally Posted By peachy: Not sure I see your point? I was just trying to add to yours with a reason that a high back pressure suppressor can't be entirely tuned out. |
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 1:22:21 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By peachy: Not sure I see your point? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By peachy: Originally Posted By DDS87: The bore is a bigger hole than the gas tube. Not sure I see your point? Lots of people think the gas in their face comes from the AR’s gas impingement mechanism. They reason a throttled gas port reduces that minuscule gas flow (it does) to reduce gas in face (right effect, wrong mechanism). Same folks think piston guns don’t need gas adjustment. Gas capacitance of the can (relates to blowdown rate) will always be greater than an open muzzle and even there semis will still have some residual pressure at extraction. Tuning versus fast blow-down cans each have pros & cons and those vary for different users. One day somebody will invent an action that stores semi-auto energy with a delay long enough to function (ejection gas wise) like a bolt action. Reduced burn potential from ejecting cooler brass could be a nice side effect. |
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 1:24:28 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DDS87: It absolutely helps, I can see this when I use my WAR upper. The LMT E carrier theoretically helps as well. It just doesn't mitigate all the disadvantages of a high back pressure suppressor. I was just trying to add to yours with a reason that a high back pressure suppressor can't be entirely tuned out. You could port the can, maybe run a line back into the butt stock filled with EPA mandated emissions scrubbing adsorbent. 
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 1:36:25 PM EDT
[#25]
Originally Posted By Ronnoc:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zw0FHykHyYA good suppressor isn't determined just by sound reduction, back pressure plays a huge roll in how your rifle will function (or not function) once a suppressor is attached. In this video we tested 22 different suppressors with a 16" AR15 using PMC XTAC 5.56 55gr to determine the amount of back pressure each suppressor creates. We utilized the Riflespeed gas control system, which allows 12 levels of adjustment, to determine the amount of adjustment needed to reliably obtain bolt hold open. See the list below for a full list of all the suppressors tested. Full List Of All Suppressors Tested: Huxwrx Flow 556K Huxwrx HX-QD 556 Huxwrx Ventum 762 Surefire RC3 Rugged Alaskan360Ti KGM R-6 KGM R556 Dead Air Nomad 30 Dead Air Nomad L Surefire 212 Mini Rugged Razor 556 AAC Mini-4 AAC 762 SDN-6 SilencerCo Omega 300 Otter Creek Labs Polonium Otter Creek Labs Polonium K Otter Creek Labs MK12 Innovative Arms Grunt-M Mini Dead Air Nomad TI Dead Air Nomad LTI SilencerCo Omega 30 Cal ASR SilencerCo Omega 5.56 which one had the best combination of low back pressure AND suppression? |
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 1:36:58 PM EDT
[#26]
Too bad you did not test the VELOS LBP?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 1:52:05 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ar15joe: Too bad you did not test the VELOS LBP? |
|
|
|
GA, USA
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 1:58:04 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 1168RGR: That is one of the ones that I might test. I just need to know more about Ronnoc’s barrel/buffer/spring/trigger/BCG first to ensure that my results are comparable to his. Even if it weren’t the same, if you could test several suppressors that Ronnoc had also tested at the same time you did the Velos, you could still generate useful data. |
|
|
NC, USA
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 2:10:26 PM EDT
[Last Edit: dmk0210]
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By anymanusa: And I own a bunch of modern guns as well. High dollar boutique guns in fact, and their gas adjustments are nothing to brag about. Scar: barely adequate for actually adjusting for suppressor. Argument could be made that it is lacking. Bren 2: poor at best. Had to actually buy a gas adjustment block from aftermarket vendor just to get the gun to run reliably from the OEM without a suppressor even attached. Tavor 7: barely adequate FAL: the bees knees. Nearly infinitely adjustable. Adcor 556: I had to buy numerous extra different size gas keys to get this gun to cycle all the different ammo that I have. Adams Arms: 2 position poor adjustment. Not suitable for tuning purposes. |
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 3:06:49 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ar15joe: Too bad you did not test the VELOS LBP? EDIT in his video pt2 comment section he says he just got a Sico Velos LBP |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 3:10:25 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By peachy: Even if it weren’t the same, if you could test several suppressors that Ronnoc had also tested at the same time you did the Velos, you could still generate useful data. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 3:54:52 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Ronnoc]
[#32]
The OP is NOT Silencer syndicate, it just popped up in YouTube for me, thought it interesting.
I was hoping to see some Griffin cans when I clicked on it from the Recce 5 discussion. I did find it interesting that the AAC 762 had a lower back pressure than the Omegas did. It would be great from makers to have a backpressure rating as a data point along with decibel reduction, weight, etc. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 7:43:59 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Green0]
[#33]
I guess I understand very little about Silencer Syndicate, but a little more today than before. I now understand Rob owns Emergency Response Tactical, a Phoenix AZ firearms training company, and he was in the USMC, and did some time with SOC, one of the companies I worked for in contracting- I also worked for Triple Canopy. As an aside, Evan here at Griffin also went to Ogara training but there was a delay in deployment logistics and he took a job with Dyncorp so he trained with Ogara, the training support company for SOC but never worked for SOC. It probably is true that Rob is legitimately just a silencer fan who is comparing silencers on Youtube as Silencer Syndicate. It's cool he has 53 cans or whatever number it is. That's a lot of personally purchased cans.
We're going to see if we can send him a couple cans for his comparisons. The key there is more of what we have to send as the climate is busy. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 8:07:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: UMP45_Enthusiast]
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By peachy: I tuned my 11.5” Turbo setup with a dedicated-suppressed BRT tube, and it made it run smoother like it was supposed to but still gassed me out and was filthy inside the receiver and mags. Tuning isn’t a cure-all for the symptoms of high back pressure in my experience. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By peachy: I tuned my 11.5” Turbo setup with a dedicated-suppressed BRT tube, and it made it run smoother like it was supposed to but still gassed me out and was filthy inside the receiver and mags. Tuning isn’t a cure-all for the symptoms of high back pressure in my experience. After my friend got a Flow556K last year I came to the same conclusion, tuning is a band aid on the problem while low back pressure cans are the actual cure. I finally broke down and got the RC3 a couple months ago and its night and day how clean the receiver is after a 5-6 mags compared to my Mini2. Not only that but brand new mags aren't suddenly filled with carbon dust after a few rounds. All that and I honestly can't tell the difference in sound between it and the RC2  Originally Posted By dmk0210: This is what I was mentioning earlier. Other than AR15s with variable adjustment screws, most other guns (if they have any adjustment at all) have simplistic gas adjustments designed to keep the guns from beating themselves to death from high bolt speeds when suppressed. They go from grossly overgassed when suppressed to just slightly overgassed when suppressed. It's not to reduce ejection port noise or gas in the face. Arguably you should still experience less gas to the face by how piston systems operate. The exception to this is the Spear-LT which will give you black face after 2 mags with an RC2... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 10:38:32 PM EDT
[#35]
Making flow through cans quiet enough to bother will be a trick.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 11:13:21 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By UMP45_Enthusiast: After my friend got a Flow556K last year I came to the same conclusion, tuning is a band aid on the problem while low back pressure cans are the actual cure. I finally broke down and got the RC3 a couple months ago and its night and day how clean the receiver is after a 5-6 mags compared to my Mini2. Not only that but brand new mags aren't suddenly filled with carbon dust after a few rounds. All that and I honestly can't tell the difference in sound between it and the RC2 Arguably you should still experience less gas to the face by how piston systems operate. The exception to this is the Spear-LT which will give you black face after 2 mags with an RC2... Bolded part is where I’m at. I just got a polonium, but once I can afford a WB 718 and I can find one in stock, it’ll become my main squeeze and the polo will get moved to some 6mm bolt gun for hunting applications. |
|
|
|
FIN
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 1:54:32 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ryan_Scott: Making flow through cans quiet enough to bother will be a trick. There is an achievable balance there with back pressure and sound suppression. However it may then be that for decent side of the muzzle sound suppression the back pressure may be a 4-7% more for example compared to a flow through design that is louder. But when compared to legacy suppressors, still much less than what they produce. But again, the real work is getting the suppressor to be - Compact - Lightweight - Durable - Excellent visual signature reduction - Enough sound suppression - Reliable and simple mounting mechanism - What is the maintenance protocol Tuukka 20 years in the industry |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 2:30:18 AM EDT
[#38]
If the RC3 is what it claims to be, it’s getting there.
The cans that have very little backpressure but are six inches long and 16 ounces for 15db reduction aren’t a viable path forward. For 15 db give me the four extra inches of barrel and a flash suppressor. |
|
|
|
NC, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 6:58:08 AM EDT
[Last Edit: dmk0210]
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By UMP45_Enthusiast: Arguably you should still experience less gas to the face by how piston systems operate. I think gas in the face (and @ ear noise) is more about timing. Flow through cans let the gas in the bore evacuate out the muzzle nearly immediately. Baffle cans have a slower bleed-off time. Usually within that bleed-off window the bolt unlocks and opens, letting a lot of the pressure (gas and noise) escape out the back. Tuning allows you to delay the bolt opening time. |
|
|
GA, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 10:29:10 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By UMP45_Enthusiast: After my friend got a Flow556K last year I came to the same conclusion, tuning is a band aid on the problem while low back pressure cans are the actual cure. I finally broke down and got the RC3 a couple months ago and its night and day how clean the receiver is after a 5-6 mags compared to my Mini2. Not only that but brand new mags aren't suddenly filled with carbon dust after a few rounds. All that and I honestly can't tell the difference in sound between it and the RC2 That was pretty much my experience with a Flow 556k. With the ‘tuned’ Turbo T2 setup, the windows in the PMAGs would quickly be covered in soot and hard to see into under certain light conditions. With the same gun ‘de-tuned’ and using the Flow556k, the windows on the PMAGs still work. Ejects around 3:30-4:00 o’clock, too. No gas to the face whatsoever. |
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 12:03:01 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dmk0210: Why would that be true? Most of the gas in the face comes from the bore when the bolt unlocks, not the gas system. My X95 certainly dumped a lot of gas out the back until I sealed it up. Granted, it's way overgassed and not tunable. I think gas in the face (and @ ear noise) is more about timing. Flow through cans let the gas in the bore evacuate out the muzzle nearly immediately. Baffle cans have a slower bleed-off time. Usually within that bleed-off window the bolt unlocks and opens, letting a lot of the pressure (gas and noise) escape out the back. Tuning allows you to delay the bolt opening time. FALs were tuneable as designed without a concern to suppression. Ammo changes, temperature changes, gas ports wear. Tuning is useful outside of suppression. Pistons deliver impulse to the carrier very sharply in either case once inertia is overcome. Barrel length & gas port distance / dwell also matters. On a shorter barrel a louder high flow, low gas capacitance can will meter louder at the ears due to inverse square law (moderated somewhat by front cap geometry). For somebody really gas sensitive desiring a short envelope rifle swapping to blackout obviates some need for high flow and subsonics benefit from extra dwell from the can. Were it not for the NFA the rifle-suppressor system could be designed more optimal. But in places where cans are lesser regulated the market usually selects cheap & effective. Those places also don’t emphasize riflery with ammo dumping CQB & fire and maneuver tactics as a dominant mode. So desires for cleanliness, low gas, etc. are less imperative. A simple over-bored can hits a middle-spot that might be good enough. |
|
|
CO, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 12:46:02 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By peachy: That was pretty much my experience with a Flow 556k. With the ‘tuned’ Turbo T2 setup, the windows in the PMAGs would quickly be covered in soot and hard to see into under certain light conditions. With the same gun ‘de-tuned’ and using the Flow556k, the windows on the PMAGs still work. Ejects around 3:30-4:00 o’clock, too. No gas to the face whatsoever. My Flow556k is cleaner than any of the other suppressors I have, but I can still see a little crud on the ejected brass. Even on a piston system like the XCR , its perfectly clean unsuppressed, but looks like an unsuppressed AR brass does when you throw that can on. Nothing like a standard suppressor, but you can see a difference. In an LMT MRP, it ejects brass at 3:00 suppressed, 3:30 unsuppressed. In my experience, you have to have the wind blowing just right to get any gas to the face from this can, but even then it's minimal....not zero, but minimal. The brass there is similar to that of the XCR, but not as clean in both scenarios. The only hangup could be the longevity of the can....time will tell. |
|
|
CO, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 12:58:48 PM EDT
[#43]
 Low Back Pressure Suppressor Showdown - Huxwrx, SilencerCo, B&T, Surefire |
|
|
GA, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 1:31:55 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryGood content. It’ll be interesting if they ever get to test the various CAT cans. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 4:37:09 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dmk0210: Why would that be true? Most of the gas in the face comes from the bore when the bolt unlocks, not the gas system. My X95 certainly dumped a lot of gas out the back until I sealed it up. Granted, it's way overgassed and not tunable. I think gas in the face (and @ ear noise) is more about timing. Flow through cans let the gas in the bore evacuate out the muzzle nearly immediately. Baffle cans have a slower bleed-off time. Usually within that bleed-off window the bolt unlocks and opens, letting a lot of the pressure (gas and noise) escape out the back. Tuning allows you to delay the bolt opening time. Removing the hot gas and carbon firehose DI guns have built in gives pistons an advantage overall, there is objectively less gas coming back to the receiver to deal with. The other issue is the charging handle, its just an opening that lets that hot gas to come straight back to your face. One of the most common recommendations is to get a gas busting charging handle in order to help mitigate this. Instead of needing a specialized charging handle to shelve off the gas flow most piston guns simple have no opening for it to vent towards your face in the first place. This is why, I assume, the Spear-LT is still abysmal in handling gas, and I would imagine the Tavor is bad because bulpups have you resting your face in proximity of the ejection port. Something like a SCAR or APC223, by their construction, eliminate paths the gas has towards your face. I would posit that a tuned piston system (if possible) would always produce less gas in the receiver than a tuned AR. But like you said before not many piston guns are tunable outside of their 2-3 base settings, the SCAR being probably the only truly tunable Piston system that comes to mind. Honestly Mototech is missing out not designing gas regulators for other guns, people would go crazy for more flexible Spear and Bren gas keys. |
|
|
|
GA, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 5:24:53 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By UMP45_Enthusiast: Removing the hot gas and carbon firehose DI guns have built in gives pistons an advantage overall, there is objectively less gas coming back to the receiver to deal with. The other issue is the charging handle, its just an opening that lets that hot gas to come straight back to your face. One of the most common recommendations is to get a gas busting charging handle in order to help mitigate this. Instead of needing a specialized charging handle to shelve off the gas flow most piston guns simple have no opening for it to vent towards your face in the first place. This is why, I assume, the Spear-LT is still abysmal in handling gas, and I would imagine the Tavor is bad because bulpups have you resting your face in proximity of the ejection port. Something like a SCAR or APC223, by their construction, eliminate paths the gas has towards your face. I would posit that a tuned piston system (if possible) would always produce less gas in the receiver than a tuned AR. But like you said before not many piston guns are tunable outside of their 2-3 base settings, the SCAR being probably the only truly tunable Piston system that comes to mind. Honestly Mototech is missing out not designing gas regulators for other guns, people would go crazy for more flexible Spear and Bren gas keys. You can tune AKs (KNS), FALs (factory tunable, also a couple different types of modified gas plugs), M1 Garands and M14s (Schuster gas plug), etc. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 6:25:00 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By peachy: You can tune AKs (KNS), FALs (factory tunable, also a couple different types of modified gas plugs), M1 Garands and M14s (Schuster gas plug), etc. Oh that is true, my brain was stuck on 5.56 for some reason. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 12:13:46 AM EDT
[#48]
I want a RC3 or one of the new KAC PRT cans, but I haven't seen enough to trust that they are as good at mitigating muzzle flash. The RC3 looks pretty flashy to me, even with the flash hider "fixing" the fireball issue that is caused by using the SOCOM muzzle brake:
 Surefire RC3, is it a flamethrower and will it replace the RC2? - Tactical Tuesday |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 5:10:22 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Master_Blaster]
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CPshooter1: I want a RC3 or one of the new KAC PRT cans, but I haven't seen enough to trust that they are as good at mitigating muzzle flash. The RC3 looks pretty flashy to me, even with the flash hider "fixing" the fireball issue that is caused by using the SOCOM muzzle brake: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kd4B8_On9pMRooftop has a pretty good protocol for testing back pressure, & have examined both SF & KAC cans.  Suppressor Stuff Ep 3 - Surefire SOCOM556-RC3: Backpressure & Flash Test  Suppressor Stuff Ep 4 - Knight's Armament 556QDC/CRS-PRT: Backpressure & Flash Test |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 12:39:34 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CPshooter1: I want a RC3 or one of the new KAC PRT cans, but I haven't seen enough to trust that they are as good at mitigating muzzle flash. The RC3 looks pretty flashy to me, even with the flash hider "fixing" the fireball issue that is caused by using the SOCOM muzzle brake: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kd4B8_On9pMPlenty of video out there from Hunter Constantine, Rooftop Defense, BigTex Ordinance showing the RC3 outperforming the RC2 in flash mitigation. The RC3 though seems very focus built for a certain platform+ammo type and moving outside of that degrades performance some. I myself haven't noticed any abnormal flash under nods since I got mine, but I am also running it on a Block II so nothing special. |
|
|
|
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.
