![Bravo Company BCM](/images/2016/banners/sticky/BCM_StickyBarAd_225x40.gif)
![Login](/images/2016/spacer.gif)
Quoted:
Quoted:
Save a few hundred and do a form 1 titanium build. Check out the suppressor forum for lots of build info. Does a form 1 get approved faster than a form 4? That would be good incentive to form1 and build. |
|
YHM
Good price, built like a tank, Lifetime warranty, Widest availability of threads for brakes and FHs with best price on them and good availability. |
|
Quoted:
Does a form 1 get approved faster than a form 4? That would be good incentive to form1 and build. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Save a few hundred and do a form 1 titanium build. Check out the suppressor forum for lots of build info. Does a form 1 get approved faster than a form 4? That would be good incentive to form1 and build. With eforms, typically yes. |
|
Stumbled across some CAD files for various suppressor tubes and baffles...anyone use these? Anything wrong with doing so? Assuming you don't assemble anything unlit your stamp comes back.
|
|
Quoted:
Stumbled across some CAD files for various suppressor tubes and baffles...anyone use these? Anything wrong with doing so? Assuming you don't assemble anything unlit your stamp comes back. View Quote We don't know we haven't seen them, you have. ![]() Not sure about patented items for a home builder, I'm sure your not supposed to, but they would have to go after you about it. Lots of people show what they have done inside of their suppressor to see what people think and to share their experiments. |
|
If you're going to Form 4, the SiCo Omega seems the obvious choice to me right now.
It's much lighter and better performing than comparables. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Save a few hundred and do a form 1 titanium build. Check out the suppressor forum for lots of build info. Does a form 1 get approved faster than a form 4? That would be good incentive to form1 and build. With eforms, typically yes. Although not as fast as it was - it seems to take about 4months now, up from about 30 days last time I filed one. I almost get the impression that they are trying to "equalize" how long e-file takes and how long paper takes. |
|
M4-2000. It's an old design and it's still the gold standard for center fire .22's. Mount system is sinple and effective, its tough and quiet, and it's available.
What's not to like? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
Ti Halo
12 ounces and mounts to an A2 flashider. I love mine! |
|
Quoted:
Man, look at that thing! You are partying like it's 1999, for sure. ![]() Now you just need a C-more on a gooseneck mount. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k84/phatalligator/imagejpg1_zps2e8f970e.jpg ![]() I <3 my Halo can. I am considering buying another one, the newer TI one but I don't think it fits over vortex FH like this one. Man, look at that thing! You are partying like it's 1999, for sure. ![]() Now you just need a C-more on a gooseneck mount. I have a free gooseneck I'll ship CWG. |
|
|
Quoted:
I have a free gooseneck I'll ship CWG. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k84/phatalligator/imagejpg1_zps2e8f970e.jpg ![]() I <3 my Halo can. I am considering buying another one, the newer TI one but I don't think it fits over vortex FH like this one. Man, look at that thing! You are partying like it's 1999, for sure. ![]() Now you just need a C-more on a gooseneck mount. I have a free gooseneck I'll ship CWG. Sounds interesting! |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
M4-2000. It's an old design and it's still the gold standard for center fire .22's. Mount system is sinple and effective, its tough and quiet, and it's available. What's not to like? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Expense, mounting system. Then buy the thread on version. However, we both know 51t works perfectly and if you don't like the rattle then you modify the mount. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
Silencerco Saker.
My only centerfire rifle can is an SDN-6. I'm happy with it, but the features of the Saker are better. |
|
I have an Innovative Arms Deception 7.62 can. The reason, I can use it on everything I own. Not real expensive, and probably can't tell the difference from one that's double the price.
|
|
Quoted:
Then buy the thread on version. However, we both know 51t works perfectly and if you don't like the rattle then you modify the mount. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
M4-2000. It's an old design and it's still the gold standard for center fire .22's. Mount system is sinple and effective, its tough and quiet, and it's available. What's not to like? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Expense, mounting system. Then buy the thread on version. However, we both know 51t works perfectly and if you don't like the rattle then you modify the mount. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile I guess we both know that. My best friend has the SDN6 with the 51t along with a Saker with 51t Saker mounts. The SDN6 locks up much tighter to the Saker 51t mounts than to the AAC 51t mounts. Personally, I'd be looking hard at the Sig cans, especially for price point. Also as I mentioned earlier, the Specwar 556K is an excellent choice. Either the Sig or the Specwar are noticeably cheaper than the M42K. The M42k is still a great can but not that cheap and missing on features that other cans in the same or lesser price range have. |
|
Quoted:
http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k84/phatalligator/imagejpg1_zps2e8f970e.jpg ![]() I <3 my Halo can. I am considering buying another one, the newer TI one but I don't think it fits over vortex FH like this one. View Quote What is the length of that barrel? Looking for a 11.5" 1x7" with standard front sight post and not having much luck. |
|
|
Quoted:
I guess we both know that. My best friend has the SDN6 with the 51t along with a Saker with 51t Saker mounts. The SDN6 locks up much tighter to the Saker 51t mounts than to the AAC 51t mounts. Personally, I'd be looking hard at the Sig cans, especially for price point. Also as I mentioned earlier, the Spectra 556K is an excellent choice. Either the Sig or the Specwar are noticeably cheaper than the M42K. The M42k is still a great can but not that cheap and missing on features that other cans in the same or lesser price range have. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
M4-2000. It's an old design and it's still the gold standard for center fire .22's. Mount system is sinple and effective, its tough and quiet, and it's available. What's not to like? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Expense, mounting system. Then buy the thread on version. However, we both know 51t works perfectly and if you don't like the rattle then you modify the mount. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile I guess we both know that. My best friend has the SDN6 with the 51t along with a Saker with 51t Saker mounts. The SDN6 locks up much tighter to the Saker 51t mounts than to the AAC 51t mounts. Personally, I'd be looking hard at the Sig cans, especially for price point. Also as I mentioned earlier, the Spectra 556K is an excellent choice. Either the Sig or the Specwar are noticeably cheaper than the M42K. The M42k is still a great can but not that cheap and missing on features that other cans in the same or lesser price range have. Just checked prices at my local dealer (highly recommended!). The Sigs and the Specwar are hundreds less than the AAC SR5 (he doesn't stock the M42k, not sure if it is being discontinued?). |
|
|
|
It took me three months for a form 4 10 months ago.
Just an FYI |
|
Quoted:
I believe that's myth and bullshit. I am the manufacturer and I can repair my product if I need to. Please provide some proof of your claim. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
I believe that's myth and bullshit. I am the manufacturer and I can repair my product if I need to. Please provide some proof of your claim. I can't access this document now, but it has been discussed openly on here: A baffle is a silencer under ATF definition. So to create a new baffle, you create a new silencer, therefore another $200 or send it to an SOT. www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/atf_letter66.txt DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND FIREARMS WASHINGTON, DC 20226 AUG 23 1999 901040:GS 5320/99-0115 Dear Mr. Bardwell: This is in response to your letter of June 28, 1999, regarding the repair of a silencer by an individual owner. You ask "whether it is lawful for the owner of a lawfully possessed silencer ... to repair that silencer himself, by replacing unserialized internal components with new components of his own making." You cited the replacement of a worn out plastic "wipe" or damaged baffle as an example. As you are aware, the terms "firearm silencer" and "firearm muffler" mean any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm, including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, and any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication. Thus, certain internal components, intended only for use in a silencer, are silencers as defined. If an individual made one of these parts, even for use as a replacement part, the individual would be making a silencer. Under the provisions of the National Firearms Act, any person must apply for and receive permission to make a silencer and pay the making tax for each silencer made. This would require the individual owner to file an ATF Form 1 application for each silencer part to be made with the payment of $200.00 for each application prior to making any replacement part. In regard to the two parts in your cited example, we consider a baffle to be a silencer, but a wipe, which is usually nothing more than a rubber or plastic disc with a hole in it, is generally not considered to be a silencer. Thus an individual owner could replace a wipe. - 2 - Mr. Bardwell For the replacement of a part or parts that meet the definition of a silencer, the individual owner would need to arrange for the transfer of the silencer to a Federal firearms licensee who is qualified to manufacture silencers. If you have questions about the classification of other silencer components, please provide us with a description of them or should any additional information be needed, please contact Gary Schiable at (202) 927-8330. Sincerely yours, [signed] Kent M. Cousins Chief, National Firearms Act Branch and then this (color added by tony_k): www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/atf_letter67.txt DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND FIREARMS WASHINGTON, DC 20226 30 AUG 1999 901040:GS 5320/990132 Dear Mr. Bardwell: This is in response to your letter of June 30, 1999, in which you ask an additional question concerning the repair of a silencer. You state that our letter of April 19, 1999, indicated that the original manufacturer of a defective silencer could replace the serial numbered component with a new component with the same serial number, on an exchange basis, with no additional transfer tax due (assuming the original manufacturer was still in business). You also stated that our letter indicated that anyone licensed as a manufacturer of NFA (National Firearms Act) firearms could replace internal, unmarked components of a silencer, whether they made it originally or not. You ask "what if the original manufacturer of a silencer is no longer in business; may a different manufacturer then replace the serial numbered component of the silencer with a replacement component bearing the same serial number as the defective one, and with no additional transfer tax due? Or are owners of silencer made by defunct companies unable to get this sort of repair done, except by getting a new silencer, with the attendant transfer taxes and other requirements?" Our letter state "A silencer which is unusable due to a manufacturer's defect, may be replaced without incurring transfer tax, only if the silencer is returned to the original manufacturer for repair and the original manufacturer is licensed as a manufacturer of firearms and has currently paid SOT as a manufacturer of firearms." Only the original manufacturer may replace a defective silencer with one bearing the same markings and without incurring transfer tax. If the original manufacturer of the silencer is no longer qualified to manufacture NFA firearms, such as by no longer being in business, they any replacement would involve the making of a new silencer with the appropriate registration and transfer tax. Should any additional information be needed, please contact Gary Schiable at (202) 927-8330. Sincerely yours, [signed] Kent M. Cousins Chief, National Firearms Act Branch |
|
Quoted:
What is the length of that barrel? Looking for a 11.5" 1x7" with standard front sight post and not having much luck. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k84/phatalligator/imagejpg1_zps2e8f970e.jpg ![]() I <3 my Halo can. I am considering buying another one, the newer TI one but I don't think it fits over vortex FH like this one. What is the length of that barrel? Looking for a 11.5" 1x7" with standard front sight post and not having much luck. 10.5 You probs wont. Best bet would be a screw set A2 FSB |
|
|
|
And thanks for the gooseneck offers guys but I'll pass.
I had my OG 2005 arms M68 low carry handle mount on it, strange how only ten years later I can't bring myself to chin weld. ![]() Plus my house and property are small, so FSP point shooting is gtg. ![]() |
|
I currently have an M4-2k, Specwar 556 and 762, have demoed the Saker, Omega, entire YHM lineup extensively and recently I had the pleasure of shooting the full OSS lineup the other day.
I'm sold. The BPR2 QD will definatly be my next can for my 10.5" It's all about the back pressure |
|
|
have a rugged surge 762 on order, i'm gonna give it a shot on my 10.5" in its short version with a 5.56 endcap
up next i'll try something from dead air, then griffin, then... I've got AAC, silencerco and YHM cans now, so far I haven't found the perfect can, so I continue the search which just means that i'm as addicted to cans as I am to guns |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
M4-2000. It's an old design and it's still the gold standard for center fire .22's. Mount system is sinple and effective, its tough and quiet, and it's available. What's not to like? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Expense, mounting system. Right now, M42Ks run under $600 now, and 556SDs are under $500. They're not the latest and greatest, but they're solid cans and with the current very low price they're a known entity and a high quality buy. Quoted:
I just ordered the new Griffin M4SDK, I think it's the best looking can for an SBR. <a href="http://s1272.photobucket.com/user/TATBME/media/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpswaklnl8v.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i1272.photobucket.com/albums/y393/TATBME/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpswaklnl8v.jpg</a> I really like my M4SDK; I bought one of the first. Austin (Green0) had told me about them during development and I bought one from them as soon as I saw they hit the market. The new ones look awesome. ![]() |
|
Quoted:
Right now, M42Ks run under $600 now, and 556SDs are under $500. They're not the latest and greatest, but they're solid cans and with the current very low price they're a known entity and a high quality buy. I really like my M4SDK; I bought one of the first. Austin (Green0) had told me about them during development and I bought one from them as soon as I saw they hit the market. The new ones look awesome. ![]() View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
M4-2000. It's an old design and it's still the gold standard for center fire .22's. Mount system is sinple and effective, its tough and quiet, and it's available. What's not to like? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Expense, mounting system. Right now, M42Ks run under $600 now, and 556SDs are under $500. They're not the latest and greatest, but they're solid cans and with the current very low price they're a known entity and a high quality buy. Quoted:
I just ordered the new Griffin M4SDK, I think it's the best looking can for an SBR. <a href="http://s1272.photobucket.com/user/TATBME/media/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpswaklnl8v.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i1272.photobucket.com/albums/y393/TATBME/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpswaklnl8v.jpg</a> I really like my M4SDK; I bought one of the first. Austin (Green0) had told me about them during development and I bought one from them as soon as I saw they hit the market. The new ones look awesome. ![]() I'd try a Griffin in a minute if I didn't have my Saker 556. I like everything I'm seeing out of Griffin. |
|
Quoted:
I can't access this document now, but it has been discussed openly on here: A baffle is a silencer under ATF definition. So to create a new baffle, you create a new silencer, therefore another $200 or send it to an SOT. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
I believe that's myth and bullshit. I am the manufacturer and I can repair my product if I need to. Please provide some proof of your claim. I can't access this document now, but it has been discussed openly on here: A baffle is a silencer under ATF definition. So to create a new baffle, you create a new silencer, therefore another $200 or send it to an SOT. www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/atf_letter66.txt DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND FIREARMS WASHINGTON, DC 20226 AUG 23 1999 901040:GS 5320/99-0115 Dear Mr. Bardwell: This is in response to your letter of June 28, 1999, regarding the repair of a silencer by an individual owner. You ask "whether it is lawful for the owner of a lawfully possessed silencer ... to repair that silencer himself, by replacing unserialized internal components with new components of his own making." You cited the replacement of a worn out plastic "wipe" or damaged baffle as an example. As you are aware, the terms "firearm silencer" and "firearm muffler" mean any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm, including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, and any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication. Thus, certain internal components, intended only for use in a silencer, are silencers as defined. If an individual made one of these parts, even for use as a replacement part, the individual would be making a silencer. Under the provisions of the National Firearms Act, any person must apply for and receive permission to make a silencer and pay the making tax for each silencer made. This would require the individual owner to file an ATF Form 1 application for each silencer part to be made with the payment of $200.00 for each application prior to making any replacement part. In regard to the two parts in your cited example, we consider a baffle to be a silencer, but a wipe, which is usually nothing more than a rubber or plastic disc with a hole in it, is generally not considered to be a silencer. Thus an individual owner could replace a wipe. - 2 - Mr. Bardwell For the replacement of a part or parts that meet the definition of a silencer, the individual owner would need to arrange for the transfer of the silencer to a Federal firearms licensee who is qualified to manufacture silencers. If you have questions about the classification of other silencer components, please provide us with a description of them or should any additional information be needed, please contact Gary Schiable at (202) 927-8330. Sincerely yours, [signed] Kent M. Cousins Chief, National Firearms Act Branch and then this (color added by tony_k): www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/atf_letter67.txt DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND FIREARMS WASHINGTON, DC 20226 30 AUG 1999 901040:GS 5320/990132 Dear Mr. Bardwell: This is in response to your letter of June 30, 1999, in which you ask an additional question concerning the repair of a silencer. You state that our letter of April 19, 1999, indicated that the original manufacturer of a defective silencer could replace the serial numbered component with a new component with the same serial number, on an exchange basis, with no additional transfer tax due (assuming the original manufacturer was still in business). You also stated that our letter indicated that anyone licensed as a manufacturer of NFA (National Firearms Act) firearms could replace internal, unmarked components of a silencer, whether they made it originally or not. You ask "what if the original manufacturer of a silencer is no longer in business; may a different manufacturer then replace the serial numbered component of the silencer with a replacement component bearing the same serial number as the defective one, and with no additional transfer tax due? Or are owners of silencer made by defunct companies unable to get this sort of repair done, except by getting a new silencer, with the attendant transfer taxes and other requirements?" Our letter state "A silencer which is unusable due to a manufacturer's defect, may be replaced without incurring transfer tax, only if the silencer is returned to the original manufacturer for repair and the original manufacturer is licensed as a manufacturer of firearms and has currently paid SOT as a manufacturer of firearms." Only the original manufacturer may replace a defective silencer with one bearing the same markings and without incurring transfer tax. If the original manufacturer of the silencer is no longer qualified to manufacture NFA firearms, such as by no longer being in business, they any replacement would involve the making of a new silencer with the appropriate registration and transfer tax. Should any additional information be needed, please contact Gary Schiable at (202) 927-8330. Sincerely yours, [signed] Kent M. Cousins Chief, National Firearms Act Branch Thanks. I've read it. It has nothing to do with my situation, and you have fundamentally misunderstood the point of the letter. That letter is from a private individual who wants to service/repair a suppressor manufactured by someone else. The ATF essentially said "only the manufacturer is allowed to do that. Send it back to the manufacturer, and he can repair it all he wants" I am talking about servicing/repairing a suppressor that I manufactured myself. Thus, "sending it back to the manufacturer" involves me walking down to the garage, where I can service/repair it all I want. ![]() By your logic, I should have paid $200 for EACH baffle I installed in the suppressor in the first place. The interpretation is as silly as it is incorrect. |
|
Quoted:
Thanks. I've read it. It has nothing to do with my situation, and you have fundamentally misunderstood the point of the letter. That letter is from a private individual who wants to service/repair a suppressor manufactured by someone else. The ATF essentially said "only the manufacturer is allowed to do that. Send it back to the manufacturer, and he can repair it all he wants" I am talking about servicing/repairing a suppressor that I manufactured myself. Thus, "sending it back to the manufacturer" involves me walking down to the garage, where I can service/repair it all I want. ![]() By your logic, I should have paid $200 for EACH baffle I installed in the suppressor in the first place. The interpretation is as silly as it is incorrect. View Quote Plus, there's the reality of the situation. Nobody is going to know if you do repair it, unless for some reason, you go online and brag about it. No jackboot is going to kick down your door and inspect your baffles to see if they all seem to be worn equally. Some of the shit you people invent just to have something to worry about. ![]() |
|
|
SilencerCo Omega and Specwar 556k is the duo I chose. If exclusively staying on 556 get the Specwar.
|
|
Quoted:
No, but they are filling .mil orders. Wait time quoted to me in early July was 'early 2016 we think' for a serial number. I'd still like to have one, but I'll wait till they are on shelves and re evaluate the market options then. Easy for me since I have the socom already. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Surefire SOCOM300 SPS Thats the one I want , lol Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile I gave up on it. When LaRue can manufacter faster than you, you're doing it wrong. What? Are they vaporware??? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile No, but they are filling .mil orders. Wait time quoted to me in early July was 'early 2016 we think' for a serial number. I'd still like to have one, but I'll wait till they are on shelves and re evaluate the market options then. Easy for me since I have the socom already. I have one currently in jail. Been in for 2 months, so hoping to get it by New Years. So they are out in the wild. |
|
Lots of good options out there. List your priorities and it will be easier to make suggestions.
Commercial first, build second. Repeat. |
|
|
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.