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: 1/3/2024 1:40:59 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DDS87: I think "doctored" is a very strong word and I don't think it applies here. No, I have no reason to believe that it does. I’m just commenting on silencer flash videos, in general, since that seems to be a growing niche. Like decibel metering videos, even most of the misleading ones would probably be made with honest intent. I’m not claiming that this one is misleading; I’m just thinking out loud. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/3/2024 6:01:03 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Green0]
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 1168RGR: No, I have no reason to believe that it does. I’m just commenting on silencer flash videos, in general, since that seems to be a growing niche. Like decibel metering videos, even most of the misleading ones would probably be made with honest intent. I’m not claiming that this one is misleading; I’m just thinking out loud. These oddities like specialty ammo, and tuned guns, and doctored digital video from some companies do leave a person skeptical. I watch stuff now through the lens of (I don't know what ammo got used, and don't know if the gun was tuned or the video altered.) It makes it harder to understand if what I see means something interesting happened or not. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 1/3/2024 7:36:03 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 1168RGR: No, I have no reason to believe that it does. I’m just commenting on silencer flash videos, in general, since that seems to be a growing niche. Like decibel metering videos, even most of the misleading ones would probably be made with honest intent. I’m not claiming that this one is misleading; I’m just thinking out loud. Got ya, I see the same issue. It's really difficult to just find direct comparisons where the same barrel lengths and ammo are used. "sotexbandit" (third party) on Reddit has the best collection so far. I was looking at the Truth About Guns muzzle device tests they did, using light meters and measuring them all by lux, etc. I don't think that level of quantification and professionalism is even necessary for flash vs sound, just by nature of being visible. It seems like a simple set of standards could be developed and used by almost anybody that can shoot in the dark to demonstrate flash accurately and repeatably. Barrel length, ammo, recording angle(s) and distance(s) from the muzzle, and some basic atmospheric conditions (temperature, humidity, altitude, etc.) would go a long way. I don't know a ton about recording devices, it just needs an adequate frame rate and be able to convey what the human eye sees accurately. I guess ambient light level could be tricky because it obviously matters, at least up to a certain point. What that point is and how to know for sure it's adequately dark is unknown to me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2024 10:14:26 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By VaFish: 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. R9 is really a subgun can not a pistol can … |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2024 11:08:30 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1168RGR]
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DDS87: Got ya, I see the same issue. It's really difficult to just find direct comparisons where the same barrel lengths and ammo are used. "sotexbandit" (third party) on Reddit has the best collection so far. I was looking at the Truth About Guns muzzle device tests they did, using light meters and measuring them all by lux, etc. I don't think that level of quantification and professionalism is even necessary for flash vs sound, just by nature of being visible. It seems like a simple set of standards could be developed and used by almost anybody that can shoot in the dark to demonstrate flash accurately and repeatably. Barrel length, ammo, recording angle(s) and distance(s) from the muzzle, and some basic atmospheric conditions (temperature, humidity, altitude, etc.) would go a long way. I don't know a ton about recording devices, it just needs an adequate frame rate and be able to convey what the human eye sees accurately. I guess ambient light level could be tricky because it obviously matters, at least up to a certain point. What that point is and how to know for sure it's adequately dark is unknown to me. Yeah, I don’t know shit about recording or display devices, or editing. The TTAG tests were impressive, in part because they disclosed the info needed to reproduce them. The ones on Vuurwapenblog seemed well-executed, also. In contrast, when I tried it (much more casually) the results were disappointing to the degree of being a waste of time. I’ve got several videos with dozens of rounds each in pitch-black 1m to the right with zero flash. But I was there and saw the flash with my own eyes. I would have thought that at least one frame would have shown it, especially with so many rounds fired. This experience led me to reflect on the TTAG tests and think, “shit, maybe that level of detail is necessary”, and later “damn, I unintentionally made these cans have zero flash on video while using the flashiest ammo I have; I bet an expert videographer/photographer can do that at will”. The other notable thing about the TTAG flash tests was that the only silencer involved (Delta P Brevis) was shown to be at the top of the heap for minimizing flash. I don’t have that particular can , but in my experience stubby silencers rarely outperform top-shelf flash suppressors at flash, in person. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2024 11:31:37 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Green0]
[#6]
To capture flash on a picture you need a high quality digital camera, a large apertures lens like F1.4 or F1.8, high iso settings (very light sensitive), and a long aperture exposure.
Like a two or four second image that a person fires in the middle of. Sometimes one camera works and another doesn’t. We had trouble with a A7III and were able to make good images with a Canon DSLR. Ive used a Pentax KR? Way back in the past and that worked. The A7S3 should work well but I have a pair and haven’t tried that to know. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2024 1:51:26 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Green0: To capture flash on a picture you need a high quality digital camera, a large apertures lens like F1.4 or F1.8, high iso settings (very light sensitive), and a long aperture exposure. Like a two or four second image that a person fires in the middle of. Sometimes one camera works and another doesn’t. We had trouble with a A7III and were able to make good images with a Canon DSLR. Ive used a Pentax KR? Way back in the past and that worked. The A7S3 should work well but I have a pair and haven’t tried that to know. How long are you setting exposures for? I’ve got an a7rIV and I want to try this. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 1/4/2024 8:43:49 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 1168RGR: Yeah, I don’t know shit about recording or display devices, or editing. The TTAG tests were impressive, in part because they disclosed the info needed to reproduce them. The ones on Vuurwapenblog seemed well-executed, also. In contrast, when I tried it (much more casually) the results were disappointing to the degree of being a waste of time. I’ve got several videos with dozens of rounds each in pitch-black 1m to the right with zero flash. But I was there and saw the flash with my own eyes. I would have thought that at least one frame would have shown it, especially with so many rounds fired. This experience led me to reflect on the TTAG tests and think, “shit, maybe that level of detail is necessary”, and later “damn, I unintentionally made these cans have zero flash on video while using the flashiest ammo I have; I bet an expert videographer/photographer can do that at will”. The other notable thing about the TTAG flash tests was that the only silencer involved (Delta P Brevis) was shown to be at the top of the heap for minimizing flash. I don’t have that particular can , but in my experience stubby silencers rarely outperform top-shelf flash suppressors at flash, in person. Huh. Without really knowing what I was doing as far as recording/capturing goes, I was able to video some flash comparisons with a refurb Galaxy S10+ in a way that was accurate to "real life" IMO. I even got some good/accurate pictures out of it. Maybe the S10+ is just particularly good for that kind of thing? I feel like I got lucky. Thinking more about a "standard" or some guidelines for this, for outdoor footage it would be very easy to state the number of minutes after official local sunset using a site like this. The user should try to record at least at nautical twilight or darker, and mention any light sources off camera that might affect things. A Kestrel or similar would be great for the atmospherics, but a lot of it could be approximated and obtained from the internet as well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2024 9:08:13 PM EDT
[#9]
Some of the cell phones have 2000 engineers on just camera development, so you can get some good qualities in cell phone cameras. One of the guys here has a cell phone that captures flash a little brighter than human eye.
The playback barely shows it though because a human eye is like 1000hz and the cell camera is like 30 or 60hz so you have to go frame by frame to see what the cell video grabbed. Long aperture, DSLR with good image sensor just grabs all the light and puts it in one image. |
|
|
|
GA, USA
|
Posted: 1/6/2024 1:37:46 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By heisman01: 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. I have a WB Inconel coming, also bought an Otter Creek Polonium K as well. What was your issue with Silencer Shop? I didnt have any issues? |
|
|
IN, USA
|
Posted: 1/8/2024 8:49:42 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Macon1: I have a WB Inconel coming, also bought an Otter Creek Polonium K as well. What was your issue with Silencer Shop? I didnt have any issues? As a competent FFL employee who does all the Eform 4 stuff: the batch payment process for stamps, terrible CS, seeing the margins they put on stuff or over what we do, normal distribution cost vs their cost. Also they aren't clear on their processes or concise with actions. I've emailed twice to make sure a form 3 has been submitted and none ones actually given me a yes answer just that it will be. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2024 7:28:43 PM EDT
[#12]
 CAT Suppressors ODB & WB - Innovative 3D Printed Suppressors Looks pretty gassy, forward ejection patterns seems consistent between multiple platforms. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 1/30/2024 10:14:30 PM EDT
[#13]
 C.A.T. ODB | Is The Hype Real? |
|
|
IN, USA
|
Posted: 1/31/2024 10:27:55 AM EDT
[#14]
Just filed my form 4 Monday
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2024 12:13:14 PM EDT
[#15]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2024 1:10:57 PM EDT
[#16]
I shot my WB-TI for the first time last weekend. For a while, I didn't use ear protection, yet I experienced no discomfort. It sounds great and operates well on my 11.5 build with the bootleg suppressor setting and a silent capture spring.
This was a replacement for a SakerK, which is one of the highest backpressure cans available. The change was night and day. It met my expectations 100%. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2024 2:05:16 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cowbell: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/259822/IMG_0910_jpeg-3113555.JPG https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/259822/IMG_0908_jpeg-3113556.JPG https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/259822/IMG_0909_jpeg-3113557.JPG https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/259822/IMG_0911_jpeg-3113559.JPG Holy smokes that looks porous. Would be interesting to see just how much carbon it holds after a few thousand rounds compared to a normal machined can. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2024 2:42:49 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By swampfoxoutdoors: Holy smokes that looks porous. Would be interesting to see just how much carbon it holds after a few thousand rounds compared to a normal machined can. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By swampfoxoutdoors: Originally Posted By Cowbell: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/259822/IMG_0910_jpeg-3113555.JPG https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/259822/IMG_0908_jpeg-3113556.JPG https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/259822/IMG_0909_jpeg-3113557.JPG https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/259822/IMG_0911_jpeg-3113559.JPG Holy smokes that looks porous. Would be interesting to see just how much carbon it holds after a few thousand rounds compared to a normal machined can. It felt like 60 grit sandpaper in my hand 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2024 2:49:20 PM EDT
[#19]
Looks like a hybrid design like the Velos, with a stack of clipped step baffles and coaxial bypass at the edges. I’d be curious to see a cutaway, X-Ray, or patent drawings.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2024 8:56:44 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By pool_shark: I shot my WB-TI for the first time last weekend. For a while, I didn't use ear protection, yet I experienced no discomfort. It sounds great and operates well on my 11.5 build with the bootleg suppressor setting and a silent capture spring. This was a replacement for a SakerK, which is one of the highest backpressure cans available. The change was night and day. It met my expectations 100%. Did you already get an approved form 4 on one or which MN dealer allows conjugal visits? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2024 10:18:06 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Jakezor: Did you already get an approved form 4 on one or which MN dealer allows conjugal visits? I would be curious too. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2024 12:25:43 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Jakezor: Did you already get an approved form 4 on one or which MN dealer allows conjugal visits? I am an 07/02 for now, currently in the process of dropping my FFL. |
|
|
|
IN, USA
|
Posted: 2/1/2024 8:41:56 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By swampfoxoutdoors: Holy smokes that looks porous. Would be interesting to see just how much carbon it holds after a few thousand rounds compared to a normal machined can. that would probably be why they have a cleaning schedule |
|
|
NC, USA
|
Posted: 2/1/2024 10:10:40 AM EDT
[Last Edit: dmk0210]
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cowbell: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/259822/IMG_0910_jpeg-3113555.JPG https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/259822/IMG_0908_jpeg-3113556.JPG https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/259822/IMG_0909_jpeg-3113557.JPG https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/259822/IMG_0911_jpeg-3113559.JPG The Form 4 for both my Wolfman and Odessa say they were made by KG Made, not Dead Air. I wonder why the ATF doesn't make them put that on the suppressor itself? It's weird to have the Form 4 say one manufacturer and the suppressor engraved with another. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2024 11:07:02 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dmk0210: Looks like a Dead Air kind of thing on the Form 4. The Form 4 for both my Wolfman and Odessa say they were made by KG Made, not Dead Air. I wonder why the ATF doesn't make them put that on the suppressor itself? It's weird to have the Form 4 say one manufacturer and the suppressor engraved with another. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dmk0210: Originally Posted By Cowbell: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/259822/IMG_0910_jpeg-3113555.JPG https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/259822/IMG_0908_jpeg-3113556.JPG https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/259822/IMG_0909_jpeg-3113557.JPG https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/259822/IMG_0911_jpeg-3113559.JPG The Form 4 for both my Wolfman and Odessa say they were made by KG Made, not Dead Air. I wonder why the ATF doesn't make them put that on the suppressor itself? It's weird to have the Form 4 say one manufacturer and the suppressor engraved with another. My sierra 5 says Sound Moderation Technologies, I have another Dead Air that says BP Firearms or something. They have to get a variance or something from AFT I believe. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2024 11:19:04 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cowbell: My sierra 5 says Sound Moderation Technologies, I have another Dead Air that says BP Firearms or something. They have to get a variance or something from AFT I believe. |
|
|
|
NC, USA
|
Posted: 2/1/2024 11:55:14 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By HansohnBrothers: Exactly. It's called a marking variance. The form 2/3/4/5 will show who actually manufactured the silencer. The markings on the can itself are covered by the approved variance. 
|
|
|
MI, USA
|
Posted: 2/2/2024 1:04:50 PM EDT
[Last Edit: McGruff1533]
[#28]
I was interested in a CAT suppressor until I read through all 10 messy pages of this thread. That combined with their weird posts and website makes me think CAT is a hard pass.
|
|
|
NC, USA
|
Posted: 2/2/2024 6:22:16 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By McGruff1533: I was interested in a CAT suppressor until I read through all 10 messy pages of this thread. That combined with their weird posts and website makes me think CAT is a hard pass. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2024 6:41:59 PM EDT
[#30]
I thought their social media stuff was a little weird at first, and then they kind of grew on me. It’s clear they make a great product. I snagged a WB. Haven’t played with it much yet, but a couple quick conjugal visits, and it seems like it is a pretty good can. I’m a fan.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2024 7:14:47 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dillhole: I thought their social media stuff was a little weird at first, and then they kind of grew on me. It’s clear they make a great product. I snagged a WB. Haven’t played with it much yet, but a couple quick conjugal visits, and it seems like it is a pretty good can. I’m a fan. Does it really sound any different than other 5.56 cans? I am intrigued, but the price is on the higher end and their social media stuff doesn't inspire confidence. |
|
|
|
LA, USA
|
Posted: 2/2/2024 8:47:28 PM EDT
[#32]
Do they actually make anything? Besides marketing, that is.
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 2/2/2024 9:04:50 PM EDT
[Last Edit: eagarminuteman]
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By spot-remover: Do they actually make anything? Besides marketing, that is. I don’t think so. They design their product but don’t manufacture it from my understanding. That Soldier Systems release from back in July 2023 said they use the same additive manufacturing group as CGS and that they are using the FFL belonging to CGS as well. https://soldiersystems.net/2023/07/31/introducing-combat-application-technologies-cat-a-new-era-of-innovation-and-excellence/ |
|
|
LA, USA
|
Posted: 2/2/2024 9:14:37 PM EDT
[#34]
When I first heard CGS is making their stuff, the first thing I thought was "how good can it possibly be?". I mean, why the hell would CGS make something that made their own stuff obsolete?
|
|
|
IN, USA
|
Posted: 2/2/2024 9:25:58 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By spot-remover: Do they actually make anything? Besides marketing, that is. They make the designs lmao Does that not count for anything? |
|
|
LA, USA
|
Posted: 2/2/2024 9:27:19 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TheBluejay: They make the designs lmao Does that not count for anything? Are you sure? |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 2/2/2024 10:11:10 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By spot-remover: When I first heard CGS is making their stuff, the first thing I thought was "how good can it possibly be?". I mean, why the hell would CGS make something that made their own stuff obsolete? CGS isn't manufacturing their stuff. CGS doesn't even manufacture CGS's stuff, or at least all of it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2024 10:21:54 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Tug153: Does it really sound any different than other 5.56 cans? I am intrigued, but the price is on the higher end and their social media stuff doesn't inspire confidence. There’s nothing magical about it, but I think it sounds comparable to my best-sounding 556 cans. I should note that this is kind of an apples-to-oranges comparison in terms of hosts, but my best-sounding 556 can is probably my SCI-Six, which I run on a PWS 11.85” piston gun, and close after that are my Sierra 5 on a pretty well-tuned 12.5” DI gun, my Dual-Lok 5, on a pretty well-tuned 10.5” DI gun. The host I’m using for my CAT WB is a Spear LT SBR, which you can’t really do much to tune, and I’d say that the can is in the discussion to be among the best-sounding. I haven’t run them all back-to-back or anything, but it’s a nice-sounding can. I am confident that it sounds better than my RC2 and my Flow 556k. It also seems to run pretty clean. Obviously we’re talking about a piston operating system, and I really don’t have much experience with the MCX, so I don’t know what to expect running it with a can, but after about 100 rounds through it, it is still very clean. If we’re talking about a can that is close in sound suppression performance to my SCI-Six, while having comparable back pressure to my Flow, flash reduction comparable to the RC2, and almost as compact as the Sierra 5, I’ll take it. I can’t say for sure that it meets all those goals, but I think it’s in the ballpark. I’ll know more when I have more of a chance to run it a little more rigorously. No clue when that will be, but hopefully soon. |
|
|
|
IN, USA
|
Posted: 2/2/2024 10:37:56 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By spot-remover: Are you sure? Theyve posted pics with a stack of 15+ prototype cans of various sizes, and different endcaps. Who are they getting these designs from? |
|
|
WA, USA
|
Posted: 2/2/2024 10:39:26 PM EDT
[#40]
Isn’t a big advertising point that the performance is comparable to an RC2 or SCI SIX but being both significantly shorter and lighter?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2024 10:55:23 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dillhole: There’s nothing magical about it, but I think it sounds comparable to my best-sounding 556 cans. I should note that this is kind of an apples-to-oranges comparison in terms of hosts, but my best-sounding 556 can is probably my SCI-Six, which I run on a PWS 11.85” piston gun, and close after that are my Sierra 5 on a pretty well-tuned 12.5” DI gun, my Dual-Lok 5, on a pretty well-tuned 10.5” DI gun. The host I’m using for my CAT WB is a Spear LT SBR, which you can’t really do much to tune, and I’d say that the can is in the discussion to be among the best-sounding. I haven’t run them all back-to-back or anything, but it’s a nice-sounding can. I am confident that it sounds better than my RC2 and my Flow 556k. It also seems to run pretty clean. Obviously we’re talking about a piston operating system, and I really don’t have much experience with the MCX, so I don’t know what to expect running it with a can, but after about 100 rounds through it, it is still very clean. If we’re talking about a can that is close in sound suppression performance to my SCI-Six, while having comparable back pressure to my Flow, flash reduction comparable to the RC2, and almost as compact as the Sierra 5, I’ll take it. I can’t say for sure that it meets all those goals, but I think it’s in the ballpark. I’ll know more when I have more of a chance to run it a little more rigorously. No clue when that will be, but hopefully soon. Thank you for your post! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/3/2024 1:07:31 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DDS87: CGS isn't manufacturing their stuff. CGS doesn't even manufacture CGS's stuff, or at least all of it. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DDS87: Originally Posted By spot-remover: When I first heard CGS is making their stuff, the first thing I thought was "how good can it possibly be?". I mean, why the hell would CGS make something that made their own stuff obsolete? CGS isn't manufacturing their stuff. CGS doesn't even manufacture CGS's stuff, or at least all of it. Interesting.  Attached File |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 2/3/2024 8:21:00 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cowbell: Interesting. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/259822/IMG_0911_jpeg-3116517.JPG Yeah, CAT has alluded to sharing the same additive manufacturing shop as CGS. Maybe CGS is technically considered the "manufacturer" for both if they are doing the finishing machining for mounts, etc? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/3/2024 10:50:50 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cowbell: Interesting. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/259822/IMG_0911_jpeg-3116517.JPG That’s what all 4 of mine say, also. But I believe at least the DMLS ones involve a manufacturing partner. I’m told that this is referred to as a “variance” authorized by the TFA. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/3/2024 11:43:56 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 1168RGR: That’s what all 4 of mine say, also. But I believe at least the DMLS ones involve a manufacturing partner. I’m told that this is referred to as a “variance” authorized by the TFA. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 1168RGR: Originally Posted By Cowbell: Interesting. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/259822/IMG_0911_jpeg-3116517.JPG That’s what all 4 of mine say, also. But I believe at least the DMLS ones involve a manufacturing partner. I’m told that this is referred to as a “variance” authorized by the TFA. The variance is that CGS manufacturers them but the actual suppressor is marked CAT |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/3/2024 11:49:48 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cowbell: The variance is that CGS manufacturers them but the actual suppressor is marked CAT Sorry, I may have misunderstood. Is that form for a CAT or CGS? I thought you were showing that CGS is listed as the manufacturer for CGS cans on Form 4s. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/3/2024 12:00:27 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 1168RGR: Sorry, I may have misunderstood. Is that form for a CAT or CGS? I thought you were showing that CGS is listed as the manufacturer for CGS cans on Form 4s. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 1168RGR: Originally Posted By Cowbell: The variance is that CGS manufacturers them but the actual suppressor is marked CAT Sorry, I may have misunderstood. Is that form for a CAT or CGS? I thought you were showing that CGS is listed as the manufacturer for CGS cans on Form 4s. That’s a form 3 for 2 CAT suppressors my dealer got in
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/3/2024 12:29:31 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cowbell: That’s a form 3 for 2 CAT suppressors my dealer got in Samsonite! I was way off! |
|
|
|
UT, USA
|
Posted: 2/3/2024 7:09:12 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DDS87: CGS isn't manufacturing their stuff. CGS doesn't even manufacture CGS's stuff, or at least all of it. I've heard people say this, but not provide any proof. Got any? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/3/2024 7:36:10 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Green0]
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Mesooohoppy: I've heard people say this, but not provide any proof. Got any? It would make sense to have a vendor do most of the laser additive in the industry. The minimum equipment to do that right is about 1.45 million dollars, and buying it doesn't make a company expert in the use of it instantly. The equipment is probably still getting more affordable, and more efficient as time passes. The machine is like 1.1 million, a big EDM machine, a shaker machine to reclaim media, and I'm probably missing something that makes up the other 80 grand. The major detractor to having someone do it for you is you export all your technology to the vendor too, and they are doing it for ten other companies, and eventually might start their own company too. |
|
|
|
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.
Attached File
Attached File
Attached File
Attached File
