User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/9/2023 12:25:04 PM EDT
[Last Edit: swampfoxoutdoors]
Metals and metallurgy.
Design. What they are doing instead of welding. DB reduction, and how those numbers were calculated. Mounts. Size, including length, width, and volume. Baffle stack design and theory. Backpressure. Change in performance relating to differing projo grain weights and barrel lengths. POI shift. Weight. Since this is a technical discussion let’s see what CAT actually has. Link to Vol.1 Half of the links on the actual website dont work for me. Seems like they have some bugs to iron out. Originally Posted By LuckyDucky: The website has been updated: https://specterscat.com/cat-a2/ The bottom says CAT is a "WRD PROPRIETARY BRAND", so it looks like I was right that it is Wain Research & Development in Singapore. It includes product pages with specs and pricing for a lot of the items, warranty page, about page. Suppressor pages: https://specterscat.com/product/cat-odb/ https://specterscat.com/product/cat-wb/ https://specterscat.com/product/cat-dito/ https://specterscat.com/product/cat-mob/ https://specterscat.com/product/cat-sc-a1/ (For the kitties watching, your URL is wrong, it should be cat-sc-b1) https://specterscat.com/product/cat-sr-a1/ https://specterscat.com/product/cat-jl/ https://specterscat.com/product/cat-jl/ https://specterscat.com/product/cat-bbk/ Accessory pages: https://specterscat.com/product/cat206/ https://specterscat.com/product/cat-spooky1/ https://specterscat.com/product/cat-spooky2/ https://specterscat.com/product/cat-nb/ https://specterscat.com/product/cat-tsf-x/ https://specterscat.com/product/cat-pt/ https://specterscat.com/product/cat-sticky/ https://specterscat.com/product/cat-sy/ Rifle: https://specterscat.com/product/cat-cac-r/ |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2023 1:10:55 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By prebans: So now we've got to buy their special cleaner..?  I hope they’re joking about their $140/qt “synthetic safe acid”. One glance at the MDS will knock $130 off that. |
|
|
|
OK, USA
|
Posted: 9/22/2023 1:43:05 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By peachy: The AI spokes people is sorta weird and off putting. Their whole schtick is a weird blend of facades, misdirection, and clown shoes. Not sure what is so bad about just being forthcoming. If you’ve built a better mouse trap, I don’t think you need all this weird BS. It just does not make any sense. The only people I know who really give a shit about things like PEW (which seems to be their whole marketing push besides retarded shit) are dudes who are in the industry and care what is said about their products or a handful of silencer nerds who probably are not going to actually buy any significant amount of product they just live to argue about what the best gun muffler is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2023 1:54:34 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JCIN: It just does not make any sense. The only people I know who really give a shit about things like PEW (which seems to be their whole marketing push besides retarded shit) are dudes who are in the industry and care what is said about their products or a handful of silencer nerds who probably are not going to actually buy any significant amount of product they just live to argue about what the best gun muffler is. I think you’re right that silencer nerds probably make up a small percentage of the overall market, but we/they probably influence the overall market informally or unintentionally. Like, someone comes on a forum to ask about cans, and some of the answers are going to be from dudes with limited experience, but others are going to be nerds or dudes with a stack of different cans. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2023 4:37:17 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 1168RGR: I hope they’re joking about their $140/qt “synthetic safe acid”. One glance at the MDS will knock $130 off that. Next you'll be claiming that McDonalds Secret Sauce is just watered down Thousand Island dressing. How dare you! |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 10/19/2023 6:35:35 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By swampfoxoutdoors: That’s goofy and embarrassing. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By swampfoxoutdoors: Originally Posted By spot-remover: Tier 1 Retarded. Or is that Tiertarded? "...but we live in those back alleys of the world, those dirty streets where bad things happen and you bleed out slowly. We were taught to cut throats, to survive and thrive." That’s goofy and embarrassing. Reminiscent of the add from a certain, now defunct knife maker that had "blood groove to prevent blood splatter" listed as a "feature". Can't remember the name, but they were over the top, start to finish. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 10/25/2023 9:06:57 AM EDT
[#6]
 
|
|
|
AK, USA
|
Posted: 10/25/2023 10:27:06 AM EDT
[#7]
Ah, all the assmad feelings towards the anti-pew sentinement make sense now. They must have payed him a lot to sell these cans because it cannot be a coincidence he swapped to 14.5", did the RC2, and then this can within a couple days.
Still won't touch it. |
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 10/25/2023 11:30:34 AM EDT
[Last Edit: KalmanPhilter]
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By UMP45_Enthusiast: Ah, all the assmad feelings towards the anti-pew sentinement make sense now. They must have payed him a lot to sell these cans because it cannot be a coincidence he swapped to 14.5", did the RC2, and then this can within a couple days. Still won't touch it. ……………….. |
|
|
LA, USA
|
Posted: 10/25/2023 11:48:07 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By UMP45_Enthusiast: Ah, all the assmad feelings towards the anti-pew sentinement make sense now. They must have payed him a lot to sell these cans because it cannot be a coincidence he swapped to 14.5", did the RC2, and then this can within a couple days. Still won't touch it. He has been talking about 14.5 mid on his podcast long before CAT. I am not defending or supporting just stating a fact. I always thought the 10.5 was a bad choice of test host. |
|
|
GA, USA
|
Posted: 10/25/2023 12:03:03 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By UMP45_Enthusiast: Ah, all the assmad feelings towards the anti-pew sentinement make sense now. They must have payed him a lot to sell these cans because it cannot be a coincidence he swapped to 14.5", did the RC2, and then this can within a couple days. Still won't touch it. I'm not opposed to buying one in the future, but after their opening bout of multiple-personality-disorder marketing, I'll be taking a wait-and-see approach. Besides casting uncertainty over their brand identity, I think their launch demonstrated horrible judgement, which makes me wonder what other decisions we might expect from them. Based on the Pew data, looks like it achieves its muzzle results by actually being fairly quiet rather than briefly boomy. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 10/26/2023 11:37:06 AM EDT
[#11]
Nice. I couldn't see even a flicker on the first shot with the 718 Inconel version. They have been posting videos like this to their gram.
 Night Comparison - WB Ti vs. WB 718 |
|
|
IN, USA
|
Posted: 10/26/2023 11:49:05 AM EDT
[#12]
I'm super excited for the end of november to get a odb for my ar10.
I like what CAT's doing and its showing how ugly this industry is to a lot more people than anyone before. |
|
|
AK, USA
|
Posted: 10/26/2023 5:38:59 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DDS87: Nice. I couldn't see even a flicker on the first shot with the 718 Inconel version. They have been posting videos like this to their gram.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UdGClpnR5EIF the RC3 lives up to the claims of even better flash suppression I imagine it will be the same. This is pretty impressive and I would be in line to buy one if they had simply come to market like a normal buisness and had a normal warranty. Like Peachy said, adopting a 'wait-and-see' will be the best approach to this company. The big concern people are taking with it now on r/NFA is that the warranty reads if you use any HUB attachment other than theirs you void your warranty, which what is the point in being HUB then? |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 10/26/2023 9:11:54 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By UMP45_Enthusiast: IF the RC3 lives up to the claims of even better flash suppression I imagine it will be the same. This is pretty impressive and I would be in line to buy one if they had simply come to market like a normal buisness and had a normal warranty. Like Peachy said, adopting a 'wait-and-see' will be the best approach to this company. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By UMP45_Enthusiast: IF the RC3 lives up to the claims of even better flash suppression I imagine it will be the same. This is pretty impressive and I would be in line to buy one if they had simply come to market like a normal buisness and had a normal warranty. Like Peachy said, adopting a 'wait-and-see' will be the best approach to this company. I predict the RC3 will have more flash vs the WB. Reason being, Barry Dueck talks about how computer modeling was used for the RC3 and they could overlay actual flash photos with what the modeling predicted and they are the same. The WB simply doesn't seem to have any at all. "You didn't see it because it's not there! " That said, I'm sure the RC3 will be awesome still, but it is also a larger, heavier, "standard-sized" suppressor. My view of their marketing, which they have conveyed over their videos and social media comments, is "A lot of industry marketing is stupid bullshit, so we're going to do our own crazy bullshit and stir up controversy and make a splash because our products are going to be good enough to afford it." The big concern people are taking with it now on r/NFA is that the warranty reads if you use any HUB attachment other than theirs you void your warranty, which what is the point in being HUB then? I'm going to post their warranty in its entirety below, with bolded parts that may pertain to using a HUB: Combat Application Technologies (CAT) offers a Lifetime Warranty on all suppressor models against defects in materials and workmanship, and there is no time limit to make a claim. CAT will simply repair, replace or refund any defect suppressor. CAT reserves the right to replace an obsolete suppressor model with a current production model in the same caliber. CAT’s warranty does not cover suppressor damage resulting from alterations, failure to perform any preventive maintenance, use of inappropriate or defective ammunition, unauthorized repairs, normal wear and tear exceeding 20,000 rounds annually, or actions or events beyond CAT’s reasonable control. CAT understands that certain manufacturers offer an “Unconditional Lifetime Warranty”, and CAT respects a purchaser’s rights to buy a suppressor relevant to their performance and quality needs. Should you be unsure of warranty replacement guidelines in the result of a failure, please contact CAT for further information. In the event that any purchased suppressor is not covered under the Lifetime warranty exceptions stated above, CAT will arrange to have the suppressor repaired or replaced for a fee of twenty (20) percent of the purchase price, plus the cost of shipping. Depending on the destructive aspects of suppressor due for warranty, the purchaser should expect up to a four (4) week return period, as the suppressor will be required to slot into additive processing timelines. All non-suppressor products also receive a workmanship and materials warranty for a period of ninety (90) days from the date of purchase. To return a product for repair, replacement or refund, please click here. NOTICE: DO NOT SHIP A CAT SUPPRESSOR FOR REPAIR WITHOUT FIRST COMPLETING THE INFORMATION LINK ABOVE AND RECEIVING A CONFIRMED RMA NUMBER. DO NOT SHIP ANY CAT SUPPRESSOR WITHOUT A COPY OF THE APPROVED BATF FORM. Seems pretty reasonable to me. That's about $250 and shipping if using a HUB voids the warranty and the suppressor is damaged. What does re-coring (or reprinting?) a SureFire cost? I'll probably go with their native Spooky1 setup eventually because it's similar to what I want anyway and they really seem to know what they're doing. |
|
|
GA, USA
|
Posted: 10/27/2023 12:33:30 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By UMP45_Enthusiast: IF the RC3 lives up to the claims of even better flash suppression I imagine it will be the same. This is pretty impressive and I would be in line to buy one if they had simply come to market like a normal buisness and had a normal warranty. Like Peachy said, adopting a 'wait-and-see' will be the best approach to this company. The big concern people are taking with it now on r/NFA is that the warranty reads if you use any HUB attachment other than theirs you void your warranty, which what is the point in being HUB then? Yeah lets pay $1700 for a heavy ass suppressor, that doesnt do anything well. |
|
|
AK, USA
|
Posted: 10/27/2023 3:33:29 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DDS87: Reason being, Barry Dueck talks about how computer modeling was used for the RC3 and they could overlay actual flash photos with what the modeling predicted and they are the same. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DDS87: Reason being, Barry Dueck talks about how computer modeling was used for the RC3 and they could overlay actual flash photos with what the modeling predicted and they are the same. You are misunderstanding this. He is talking about the development cycle and how their simulations match real life in their journey to remove said flash, not an actual statement on the RC3's flash. He then immediately follows that by saying they removed the flash and at 1:50 states that the flash performance is improved over the RC2 because of these simulations. Originally Posted By DDS87: That said, I'm sure the RC3 will be awesome still, but it is also a larger, heavier, "standard-sized" suppressor. Weight is an interesting metric to look at, because I think its over-hyped for the WB. WB 1.375 Weight: 12.8oz note: Core weight, adaptors range 1.1oz to 2oz or higher for 3rd party Length: 5.45" note: Core Length WB 1x16LH Weight: 14.4oz note: Core weight, adaptors range 1.1oz to 2oz or higher for 3rd party Length: 5.8" note: Core Length RC3 Weight: 17oz note: Built in QD Length: 6.4" Mini3 Weight: 14.5oz note: Built in QD Length: 5" Once you start looking to go any direction other than direct thread I really don't see massive weight savings. Taking a common mount like the Plan-A, +2oz brings the lightest weight variant to 14.8oz (which is pretty good). Going further to an extremely lightweight QD system like Dual-Lok it goes up by 3oz to 15.8oz (meh 1oz weight savings). And that is the lightweight version of their Inconel can, if you had the 1x16LH version you would blow past the 17oz of the RC3 with a shorter overall can. If you allow me to move the goal post a bit, the Mini3 (if equal like the RC3) with its length of 5" is more inline with the WB than the full size and weighs 14.5oz. This is already the same weight as the 1x16LH without an adaptor and not even a full ounce heavier than the lightest weight possible configuration of the 1.375 of 13.9oz. Of course this also hinges on if the Mini3 performs as well/better than the Mini2 (Like RC3 claims). AND of course this still costs almost twice as much. Originally Posted By DDS87: I'm going to post their warranty in its entirety below, with bolded parts that may pertain to using a HUB: That indeed looks better than their original one that suggested you get fucked if you used anything 3rd party. Surefire, from my research, $0 repair costs in a majority of cases including on baffle strikes. Re-core is about $300 for an RC2. And honestly if you shoot enough ammo to recore a surefire, you probably have plenty of money  |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 10/28/2023 12:16:04 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By UMP45_Enthusiast: You are misunderstanding this. He is talking about the development cycle and how their simulations match real life in their journey to remove said flash, not an actual statement on the RC3's flash. He then immediately follows that by saying they removed the flash and at 1:50 states that the flash performance is improved over the RC2 because of these simulations. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By UMP45_Enthusiast: You are misunderstanding this. He is talking about the development cycle and how their simulations match real life in their journey to remove said flash, not an actual statement on the RC3's flash. He then immediately follows that by saying they removed the flash and at 1:50 states that the flash performance is improved over the RC2 because of these simulations. My bad, that's what I get for multitasking. I watched a bunch of RC3 videos so I don't remember precisely which ones said this, but they said something to the effect of "flash is about the same or even less" or "a bit less than" the RC2. The RC2 is still unofficially the gold standard for this (though some Griffin cans seem to do better), so we are splitting hairs with top performers here. Still, I think none at all even at FRP would be pretty cool. If I was heavily invested in SF muzzle devices and/or had a beloved 14.5 with pinned (non-WARCOMP) device, that would tip my choice. Weight is an interesting metric to look at, because I think its over-hyped for the WB. WB 1.375 Weight: 12.8oz note: Core weight, adaptors range 1.1oz to 2oz or higher for 3rd party Length: 5.45" note: Core Length WB 1x16LH Weight: 14.4oz note: Core weight, adaptors range 1.1oz to 2oz or higher for 3rd party Length: 5.8" note: Core Length RC3 Weight: 17oz note: Built in QD Length: 6.4" Mini3 Weight: 14.5oz note: Built in QD Length: 5" Once you start looking to go any direction other than direct thread I really don't see massive weight savings. Taking a common mount like the Plan-A, +2oz brings the lightest weight variant to 14.8oz (which is pretty good). Going further to an extremely lightweight QD system like Dual-Lok it goes up by 3oz to 15.8oz (meh 1oz weight savings). And that is the lightweight version of their Inconel can, if you had the 1x16LH version you would blow past the 17oz of the RC3 with a shorter overall can. If you allow me to move the goal post a bit, the Mini3 (if equal like the RC3) with its length of 5" is more inline with the WB than the full size and weighs 14.5oz. This is already the same weight as the 1x16LH without an adaptor and not even a full ounce heavier than the lightest weight possible configuration of the 1.375 of 13.9oz. Of course this also hinges on if the Mini3 performs as well/better than the Mini2 (Like RC3 claims). AND of course this still costs almost twice as much. I don't think that's moving the goal posts, the WB is in that "intermediate" size compared to more established 5.56 K cans (SF and KAC about 5"). That intermediate range is actually what suckered me into the Sierra5 Xeno version: I was pretty set on a Mini2, and the Sierra5 dropped with hope that it would be closer to RC2 performance in a package more like the Mini2 in length and weight. Total system weights in the configuration I would use: SF RC3 + CTFH = 19.6oz 6.3" CAT WB/Inc + Spooky 1 = 17.1oz 5.8" (Add 0.8oz for 14.5PW version of muzzle device. 10.5oz for Ti WB and lightest Spooky 1.) SF Mini3 + CTFH = 17.1oz 5.0" (Speculative, but should be pretty accurate based on the RC3.) So agreed, we aren't talking about yuge differences here (if we stay with Inconel). The CAT/Mini3 setup is very similar to the S5 Xeno + 6315Xe in size and weight, which is very nice. A touch of length and weight wouldn't kill a deal for me for the performance we are seeing with this new tech. That indeed looks better than their original one that suggested you get fucked if you used anything 3rd party. Surefire, from my research, $0 repair costs in a majority of cases including on baffle strikes. Re-core is about $300 for an RC2. And honestly if you shoot enough ammo to recore a surefire, you probably have plenty of money Okay, fair enough. Some may also want to factor in the CAT cleaning schedule. The RC3 is a true high-flow and the WB is more of a hybrid from what I understand. I haven't heard yet about a recommended cleaning schedule about the SF, if any exists or is recommended/needed like the CAT or HUX products. What a time to be in the suppressor market though. This is radically better than just a few years ago and everything seems to be accelerating. |
|
|
NC, USA
|
Posted: 10/28/2023 1:50:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: SFUserManual]
[#18]
Incorrect. Go to the surefire website. Search RC2. Scroll down and download the user manual. It covers lock ring and mount cleaning, along with a suggested cleaning schedule of every 10k rounds with a CLR dunk. Why else do you think a brush comes with it? Lol
And yes I was lurking and saw your specific comment and made an account just to point out that it is in the manual. Read your damn manuals. *Had to do a correction. I breezed passed the In and Correct error. Needed to be; Incorrect. Side note, manuals exist for a reason. Please read them rather than being a uncultured ape. 🥳 |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2023 2:27:42 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SFUserManual: Incorrect. Go to the surefire website. Search RC2. Scroll down and download the user manual. It covers lock ring and mount cleaning, along with a suggested cleaning schedule of every 10k rounds with a CLR dunk. Why else do you think a brush comes with it? Lol And yes I was lurking and saw your specific comment and made an account just to point out that it is in the manual. Read your damn manuals. *Had to do a correction. I breezed passed the In and Correct error. Needed to be; Incorrect. Side note, manuals exist for a reason. Please read them rather than being a uncultured ape. 🥳 How long have you been working for SF? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2023 2:47:29 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SFUserManual: Incorrect. Go to the surefire website. Search RC2. Scroll down and download the user manual. It covers lock ring and mount cleaning, along with a suggested cleaning schedule of every 10k rounds with a CLR dunk. Why else do you think a brush comes with it? Lol And yes I was lurking and saw your specific comment and made an account just to point out that it is in the manual. Read your damn manuals. *Had to do a correction. I breezed passed the In and Correct error. Needed to be; Incorrect. Side note, manuals exist for a reason. Please read them rather than being a uncultured ape. 🥳 No  Attached File |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 10/28/2023 3:37:20 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SFUserManual: Incorrect. Go to the surefire website. Search RC2. Scroll down and download the user manual. It covers lock ring and mount cleaning, along with a suggested cleaning schedule of every 10k rounds with a CLR dunk. Why else do you think a brush comes with it? Lol And yes I was lurking and saw your specific comment and made an account just to point out that it is in the manual. Read your damn manuals. *Had to do a correction. I breezed passed the In and Correct error. Needed to be; Incorrect. Side note, manuals exist for a reason. Please read them rather than being a uncultured ape. 🥳 I didn't see anything specifically for the RC3 that we're talking about. It's a new technology so I was wondering if that will change the recommendations. Read manuals, absolutely. I don't own an RC2 so I didn't have the brush in mind. Of course mounting systems should get some attention with routine maintenance/inspection. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2023 4:52:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Green0]
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DDS87: I didn't see anything specifically for the RC3 that we're talking about. It's a new technology so I was wondering if that will change the recommendations. Read manuals, absolutely. I don't own an RC2 so I didn't have the brush in mind. Of course mounting systems should get some attention with routine maintenance/inspection. I don't think you're going to remove much with a nylon brush. It's like a "you too can pretend you're accomplishing something" device. There is a whole coaxial chamber (tube inside a larger tube) in Surefire you can't hope to touch with the brush (even if the nylon bristles got to the tube diameter, and the brush is just nylon so removing copper and lead is going to be about impossible with plastic bristles. A wire brush for the mount, an ultrasonic for the can, that's about all you can really do outside of a periodic soak for a day or two, drain and shoot. And Ultrasonic will remove the cerakote, so you will lose the finish. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2023 10:49:55 AM EDT
[#23]
I’m kind of a nerd, so I do read manuals that are printed on paper. I’ve never seen one with an issued can, and I’m not sure any of my personally owned rifle cans came with an substantive manual, or cleaning instructions. The ones that had manuals at all were like “put it on a rifle and shoot, this is what the warranty looks like, silencers get hot, the end”.
I’ve never seen a silencer cleaning brush in person. I tried to clean my first NT4 with CLP and whatever stuff is in an Otis kit, and that didn’t do shit. I asked my armorer how I should clean it, and he was like “don’t”. |
|
|
|
AK, USA
|
Posted: 10/29/2023 7:40:09 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DDS87: Total system weights in the configuration I would use: SF RC3 + CTFH = 19.6oz 6.3" CAT WB/Inc + Spooky 1 = 17.1oz 5.8" (Add 0.8oz for 14.5PW version of muzzle device. 10.5oz for Ti WB and lightest Spooky 1.) SF Mini3 + CTFH = 17.1oz 5.0" (Speculative, but should be pretty accurate based on the RC3.) Surefire muzzle device weight has to be one of their biggest flaws of the RC ecosystem. I wonder if they realize that if they made a half weight Ti 3-Prong people would probably drop $200+ for them. The other company that suffers badly from this has to be Hux, "Here is our super light Flow can! Enjoy our 4oz flash hider, though." Now that you mention it, I wonder what the cleaning regime and recore times will be on the RC3. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2023 8:29:43 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By UMP45_Enthusiast: Surefire muzzle device weight has to be one of their biggest flaws of the RC ecosystem. I wonder if they realize that if they made a half weight Ti 3-Prong people would probably drop $200+ for them. The other company that suffers badly from this has to be Hux, "Here is our super light Flow can! Enjoy our 4oz flash hider, though." Now that you mention it, I wonder what the cleaning regime and recore times will be on the RC3. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By UMP45_Enthusiast: Originally Posted By DDS87: Total system weights in the configuration I would use: SF RC3 + CTFH = 19.6oz 6.3" CAT WB/Inc + Spooky 1 = 17.1oz 5.8" (Add 0.8oz for 14.5PW version of muzzle device. 10.5oz for Ti WB and lightest Spooky 1.) SF Mini3 + CTFH = 17.1oz 5.0" (Speculative, but should be pretty accurate based on the RC3.) Surefire muzzle device weight has to be one of their biggest flaws of the RC ecosystem. I wonder if they realize that if they made a half weight Ti 3-Prong people would probably drop $200+ for them. The other company that suffers badly from this has to be Hux, "Here is our super light Flow can! Enjoy our 4oz flash hider, though." Now that you mention it, I wonder what the cleaning regime and recore times will be on the RC3. So much truth here and it's sadly not limited to suppressors. I remember when the March 1-10 dfp got announced at under 18oz but required their specific mount that weighs almost 9oz (and costs like $600). That mount brought the entire thing within an OZ of an atacr in a badger mount. I do not understand why manufacturers create lightweight options but don't invest into light weight eco-systems for them. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2023 8:45:32 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By hoody2shoez: So much truth here and it's sadly not limited to suppressors. I remember when the March 1-10 dfp got announced at under 18oz but required their specific mount that weighs almost 9oz (and costs like $600). That mount brought the entire thing within an OZ of an atacr in a badger mount. I do not understand why manufacturers create lightweight options but don't invest into light weight eco-systems for them. ^this |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 11/15/2023 2:24:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Trey-W]
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 1168RGR: I hope they’re joking about their $140/qt “synthetic safe acid”. One glance at the MDS will knock $130 off that. It’s most likely urea hydrochloride which is very common in industrial facilities for cleaning deposits off of metals. It’s not expensive. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 12/24/2023 3:07:13 PM EDT
[#28]
The Alabama Arsenal guys seem impressed by the new CAT suppressors.
WB on AR, ODB on 6.5CM bolt gun (video) Got to briefly try out the new @specterscat cans today and I was impressed! Very low back pressure, and great sound signature. We’ll have more to come on these and more calibers, really looking forward to getting these on some more guns. But overall my initial impression is these cans do live up to the hype. ODB on 9" 300Blk AR (video) Well it was an enlightening day shooting @specterscat suppressors. For as long as I can remember, it’s kind of been a rule that really low back pressure cans kinda suck with subs… CAT blew that notion away. Maybe the quietest 300BLK can I’ve heard, makes me really wonder what the JL will sound like. Shooting @callaway_ballistics 300BLK as always. Hope you all have a Merry Christmas! |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2023 3:40:56 PM EDT
[#29]
 SR (.22) vs. SC (9mm) I was between the Dead Air Mojave and a Lithium on my next can, but the CAT 9mm may be awesome. The other CAT cans certainly have done well on PEW. https://specterscat.com/product/cat-mob/ Let’s imagine a world where after the success of creating massive, earth-moving machinery, there was an inexplicable pivot into the nuanced field of firearm suppression, specifically focusing on the creation of the most innovative 9mm submachine gun suppressor the world has ever seen. This fanciful device, replete with Surge Bypass © components and with superior signature propagation, could be a whimsical blend of over-engineering and industrial might. Designed to handle the intense power of industrial engines, one could jest that this tech is akin to using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Imagine a suppressor so effective that the gun doesn’t just become silent, it practically retracts the bullet in apology for the disturbance. The MOBSTER promises to turn the crack of a 9mm SMG into nothing more than a gentle purr, if it doesn’t, we’ll break its kneecaps and send it swimming with the fishes. Nice. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2023 6:59:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Green0]
[#30]
At 1.65” OD, the idea of redefining pistol suppressor performance is pretty straightforward.
Thats a 40% increase in volume over 1.375” diameter which is pretty standard for pistol cans. One of the 9mm rifles on the market has a 16” barrel with a couple holes near the chamber and a 1.5” tube to the end of the barrel with no baffles in it, and it suppresses sound fairly well. When you do the math its volume is ~110% that of the 1.65” pistol can if you delete the barrel steel volume from the total volume. (Tube is approximately 13” due to barrel nut and thread interface details). |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2023 2:38:44 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Green0: At 1.65” OD, the idea of redefining pistol suppressor performance is pretty straightforward. Thats a 40% increase in volume over 1.375” diameter which is pretty standard for pistol cans. One of the 9mm rifles on the market has a 16” barrel with a couple holes near the chamber and a 1.5” tube to the end of the barrel with no baffles in it, and it suppresses sound fairly well. When you do the math its volume is ~110% that of the 1.65” pistol can if you delete the barrel steel volume from the total volume. (Tube is approximately 13” due to barrel nut and thread interface details). I bet you are absolutely right, the volume on that new CAT 9mm should be awesome. I have a Dead Air Primal and I totally love the performance of it on a .45 pistol, but I wish the weight was less. The CAT does that, and apparently what has been released of their next-generation designs has performed exceptionally on Pew Science. I'm excited about the upcoming CAT release. With PCC's, diameter (except outrageous) is irrelevant and pretty much the same for optics pistols. Thank you. |
|
|
|
VA, USA
|
Posted: 12/28/2023 3:19:05 PM EDT
[#32]
Grabbed an ODB TI from SilencerShop today.
I'll let you guys know how it runs in 10 months  |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2023 6:51:08 PM EDT
[Last Edit: ECCO_Machine]
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Green0: At 1.65” OD, the idea of redefining pistol suppressor performance is pretty straightforward. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Green0: At 1.65” OD, the idea of redefining pistol suppressor performance is pretty straightforward. Call me old-fashioned, but I wouldn't consider anything 1.65" OD and >10 ounces at it's lightest without a booster a pistol can. I don't even like 1.375 or 1.4 diameter personally; 1.25-1.3 is my preference, and if it weighs more than 11 or 12 ounces including booster and piston, I'm not interested. Side note: Who would want the weight and cost of Inconel in a pistol/SMG suppressor? You literally cannot burn down a titanium or stainless can on a 9mm SMG. We've tried with back-to-back-to-back-to-back-ad nauseum 72 round drum magazine dumps on our ~900 RPM Suomi, and some of those tests were with TLX that's half the size and only 40% the mass of this thing. Also: Let’s imagine a world where after the success of creating massive, earth-moving machinery, there was an inexplicable pivot into the nuanced field of firearm suppression is this outfit now alluding to being a successor of the still very much an active and incorporated entity Caterpillar, Inc? |
|
|
|
VA, USA
|
Posted: 12/28/2023 7:52:26 PM EDT
[#34]
Only 9mm pistol capable can I have at the moment is my YHM R9. It's 1.56" in diameter and blocks the suppressor height sights on my Glock. I can shoot it with a red dot. I can't imagine wanting a fatter suppressor on a handgun.
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 1/2/2024 1:05:25 PM EDT
[#35]
 COMBAT APPLICATION TECHNOLOGIES (CAT) | WB 718, WB Ti, ODB 718, ODB Ti |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/2/2024 2:27:30 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryWell this proves at least CAT's IG video was a little doctored, it shows the WB Inconel had zero flash even on first round while this shows a pencil of flame about every shot. The performance seems pretty comparable to the RC2 which for a flow through can makes it a strong competitor. The RC3 on the other hand still seems superior in performance. Also I sure hope that Ti spark calms down with use or people who bought that thing might be a little disappointed. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/2/2024 2:39:12 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryThe Inconel models appear to do really well in the video. I do wonder about the doctorability of flash-testing videos, similarly to casual sound testing videos…simply not catching peak. I’ve tried to catch flash on video before and concluded that I lack the training and equipment to do it properly, mostly failing to capture any flash at all, and sometimes catching it off-peak. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 1/2/2024 3:30:15 PM EDT
[#38]
I think "doctored" is a very strong word and I don't think it applies here. Favorable conditions in that original footage? Perhaps. Ammo, humidity, recording device could all factor into it. I still think it did amazing overall in the HC video; this is a short can on an 11.5." The RC3 belched out a flame on FRP but then had nothing, where it has sporadic flickers in most videos I've seen. Both seem outstanding.
The comparison I'd really love to see is Recce 5K vs WB Inconel. I'm starting to suspect they would be close in flash reduction and blowback. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/2/2024 7:32:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: UMP45_Enthusiast]
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DDS87: I think "doctored" is a very strong word and I don't think it applies here. Favorable conditions in that original footage? Perhaps. Ammo, humidity, recording device could all factor into it. I still think it did amazing overall in the HC video; this is a short can on an 11.5." The RC3 belched out a flame on FRP but then had nothing, where it has sporadic flickers in most videos I've seen. Both seem outstanding. The comparison I'd really love to see is Recce 5K vs WB Inconel. I'm starting to suspect they would be close in flash reduction and blowback. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DDS87: I think "doctored" is a very strong word and I don't think it applies here. Favorable conditions in that original footage? Perhaps. Ammo, humidity, recording device could all factor into it. I still think it did amazing overall in the HC video; this is a short can on an 11.5." The RC3 belched out a flame on FRP but then had nothing, where it has sporadic flickers in most videos I've seen. Both seem outstanding. The comparison I'd really love to see is Recce 5K vs WB Inconel. I'm starting to suspect they would be close in flash reduction and blowback. I may have chosen too strong of a word there, but I would consider choosing ammo and conditions to give a non-normal result for your video to still be along the same vein as "doctored." Of course there is no way to really prove if they did or didn't other than Hunter's video seeming to give a completely different result than CAT's videos. It could also be the case that the cellphone CAT filmed their video with could just be that bad at low light filming. On the other hand the Ti can performed the same as CAT's IG video, so that seems genuine. It would be hard for the RC3 to throw stones since Surefire kind of left out the muzzle device preference until someone posted the flamthrower picture. Seems no company is necessarily opposed to cherry picking their promotional stuff. Originally Posted By DDS87:The comparison I'd really love to see is Recce 5K vs WB Inconel. I'm starting to suspect they would be close in flash reduction and blowback. I would like to see this too. Hunter's video showed the ejection pattern of the WB was a solid 1:30 to 2 o'clock compared to the 3 to 3:30 of the Flow556 and RC3. This makes me wonder if the can is really "flowthrough" or more of a "flow improved" can. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 1/2/2024 7:53:16 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By UMP45_Enthusiast:I may have chosen too strong of a word there, but I would consider choosing ammo and conditions to give a non-normal result for your video to still be along the same vein as "doctored." Of course there is no way to really prove if they did or didn't other than Hunter's video seeming to give a completely different result than CAT's videos. It could also be the case that the cellphone CAT filmed their video with could just be that bad at low light filming. On the other hand the Ti can performed the same as CAT's IG video, so that seems genuine. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By UMP45_Enthusiast:I may have chosen too strong of a word there, but I would consider choosing ammo and conditions to give a non-normal result for your video to still be along the same vein as "doctored." Of course there is no way to really prove if they did or didn't other than Hunter's video seeming to give a completely different result than CAT's videos. It could also be the case that the cellphone CAT filmed their video with could just be that bad at low light filming. On the other hand the Ti can performed the same as CAT's IG video, so that seems genuine. Problem is we don't know what "normal" conditions are, really, when we're cutting it this close. The conditions in the original CAT could have been perfectly normal for their area (NM?) for most of the year, with whatever bulk ammo they use. We went from no flash to a sporadic faint flicker. I've seen this the other way in Mojo's videos demoing a Griffin can; there was absolutely no flash, whereas in the promos there is a little. It would be hard for the RC3 to throw stones since Surefire kind of left out the muzzle device preference until someone posted the flamthrower picture. Seems no company is necessarily opposed to cherry picking their promotional stuff. Exactly, and I think SF should have been more transparent and up-front about that. I don't think any of the influencer promo event videos mentioned it. But, that great performance is attainable with a common muzzle device. I would like to see this too. Hunter's video showed the ejection pattern of the WB was a solid 1:30 to 2 o'clock compared to the 3 to 3:30 of the Flow556 and RC3. This makes me wonder if the can is really "flowthrough" or more of a "flow improved" can. I'd call that 2-2:30 , it's just forward of the ejection port (what I consider the 3:00). We didn't see that gun fired unsuppressed, either. Different guns were used for each can, unfortunately. The CAT's Surge Bypass is considered a "hybrid" technology, changing the flow rate of gas as it travels through, and offering a "compromise" of sorts with higher flow but retaining more of the desirable qualities of traditional types. I don't think the Recce 5K is nearly as sophisticated in design, but I have to wonder if the end result is very similar in effect, at least to the shooter and weapon, basically a slightly more constricted Flow556K with flash suppression like the CAT. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/2/2024 8:01:05 PM EDT
[#41]
Sophisticated is difficult to define. It could seem that tons of geometry is sophisticated, or that could be a crutch to make the can perform without tuning it- kind of like a roll of screen in an L34A1 sterling. The geometries in the ECO-Flow baffles are tuned in a couple different ways and the flash suppressor cap is the result of several R&D workups to improve upon an original design.
I'm sure there are multiple ways to reach the same end, as the market essentially currently looks like that in some respects- with many cans of different sizes performing in a pretty similar way in some aspects. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/2/2024 8:13:48 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DDS87: I'd call that 2-2:30 , it's just forward of the ejection port (what I consider the 3:00). We didn't see that gun fired unsuppressed, either. Different guns were used for each can, unfortunately.I think the RC3 and WB are pretty safe to compare considering the setups and consistent ammo use. The RC3 is tossing brass backwards on a 10.5" carbine while the WB is tossing the brass well forward on a 11.5" carbine. Looking up the rifle specifications they both have pretty average gas ports for their length from factory and both ship with an H1 from factory. There is no telling if the buffers have been swapped on either, but that is a pretty large difference in ejection either way. The ejection pattern on the 10.5", though, makes me suspect the buffer has been swapped to a much heavier one. The Flow556k strides a little too far away with a 12.5" mid-length to make a good comparison. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/2/2024 8:16:00 PM EDT
[#43]
For those making statements about ejection pattern (which is not easily seen in the video) remember he said the 11.5” was a mid gas system not carbine.
I’ve been running a flow556k on a Noveske mid gas 11.5” and seeing about 3:00 where the same can on carbine 11.5” I’m seeing 4:00-4:30. No dwell time on that 11.5” mid gas. Just a thought. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 1/2/2024 8:32:46 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By KSPeacekeeper: For those making statements about ejection pattern (which is not easily seen in the video) remember he said the 11.5” was a mid gas system not carbine. I’ve been running a flow556k on a Noveske mid gas 11.5” and seeing about 3:00 where the same can on carbine 11.5” I’m seeing 4:00-4:30. No dwell time on that 11.5” mid gas. Just a thought. He has misspoken about that exact gun's gas length before, mistaking it for a mid-length. Also, Sionics doesn't sell an 11.5" mid-length. 
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 1/2/2024 8:41:53 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Green0: Sophisticated is difficult to define. It could seem that tons of geometry is sophisticated, or that could be a crutch to make the can perform without tuning it- kind of like a roll of screen in an L34A1 sterling. The geometries in the ECO-Flow baffles are tuned in a couple different ways and the flash suppressor cap is the result of several R&D workups to improve upon an original design. I'm sure there are multiple ways to reach the same end, as the market essentially currently looks like that in some respects- with many cans of different sizes performing in a pretty similar way in some aspects. Agreed for the most part. I'm curious what you mean by "perform without tuning." What I had in mind was all the modeling and tweaking involved to get the gas flow just right at just the right intervals, etc., on average considering different ammo types and barrel lengths, and then making it happen with "3D printing" in CAT's case. From the bit I've read here, it sounds like the ECO baffles are a very mature and effective traditional design, and the Recce 5K's cap went through may iterations, but it was a bit more "seat of the pants" development. Nothing wrong with that at all, it's just my perception. The end result is what matters and I suspect they are more similar than different. CAT does have a recommended cleaning schedule (with their proprietary chemical). That wouldn't be a deal killer for me, considering how much ammunition/money/time it equates to, but I wouldn't be thrilled with that aspect. Do you think the "simpler" Recce 5K would benefit from a similar schedule by soaking with something like this? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/2/2024 9:36:46 PM EDT
[#46]
Originally Posted By DDS87: He has misspoken about that exact gun's gas length before, mistaking it for a mid-length. Also, Sionics doesn't sell an 11.5" mid-length. Ok. Well I have no idea what he has and don’t know a thing about Sionics as that isn’t a brand I’ve ever run. Sorry, just took somebody at their word. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 1/2/2024 9:46:38 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By KSPeacekeeper: Ok. Well I have no idea what he has and don’t know a thing about Sionics as that isn’t a brand I’ve ever run. Sorry, just took somebody at their word. No worries, he should be more careful with verifying what exactly he's demonstrating, given us nerds. Regardless, I'm not going to read too far into ejection angle without seeing the same weapon fired unsuppressed in the same conditions. I've spent enough time and ammo tinkering with different gas port sizes, buffers, and springs in varying conditions to conclude anything about an ejection angle between 2-4:00 under one set of circumstances. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 1/2/2024 9:53:31 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By UMP45_Enthusiast: I think the RC3 and WB are pretty safe to compare considering the setups and consistent ammo use. The RC3 is tossing brass backwards on a 10.5" carbine while the WB is tossing the brass well forward on a 11.5" carbine. Looking up the rifle specifications they both have pretty average gas ports for their length from factory and both ship with an H1 from factory. There is no telling if the buffers have been swapped on either, but that is a pretty large difference in ejection either way. The ejection pattern on the 10.5", though, makes me suspect the buffer has been swapped to a much heavier one. The Flow556k strides a little too far away with a 12.5" mid-length to make a good comparison. Are you "Gunaks" on Reddit? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/2/2024 10:11:13 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DDS87: Agreed for the most part. I'm curious what you mean by "perform without tuning." What I had in mind was all the modeling and tweaking involved to get the gas flow just right at just the right intervals, etc., on average considering different ammo types and barrel lengths, and then making it happen with "3D printing" in CAT's case. From the bit I've read here, it sounds like the ECO baffles are a very mature and effective traditional design, and the Recce 5K's cap went through may iterations, but it was a bit more "seat of the pants" development. Nothing wrong with that at all, it's just my perception. The end result is what matters and I suspect they are more similar than different. CAT does have a recommended cleaning schedule (with their proprietary chemical). That wouldn't be a deal killer for me, considering how much ammunition/money/time it equates to, but I wouldn't be thrilled with that aspect. Do you think the "simpler" Recce 5K would benefit from a similar schedule by soaking with something like this? There isn't enough geometry in a Recce 5K to put carbon on to make the carbon a significant problem to require a cleaning regimen. These newer printed cans have so many surfaces that they often have substantial fouling issues. The temptation of printing is to use the flexibility to create hundreds of thin surfaces, and then that is where the fouling issues come from. The physical vapor deposition is magnified by the much more numerous surfaces. |
|
|
|
IN, USA
|
Posted: 1/3/2024 8:20:01 AM EDT
[#50]
Well I have an odb Inconel on the way so ill let you guys know when the form 3 shows up.
I don't see how people like dealing with silencer shop, its been by far my worst dealer experience ever. |
|
|
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.
