Armory Sponsor
Posted: 10/17/2014 3:41:59 PM EDT
|
I have a pre-2010 "M4 2000 Mod 8" suppressor that has three thick baffles with scalloped edges on the baffle pass through openings.
A friend of mine has a new M4 2000 that appears to have seven copperish colored simplistic/old school baffles that do not look very durable. Anybody know anything about the design change? |
|
I'm building a Form 1 can and I paying the most attention to the M4-2000 design. Here is a older cut away but matches your friend's newer can:
M4-2000 cut in half: 
It appears to match your friend's baffle stack. More traditionally suppressors used to have the baffle stack you describe (4 chambers, larger near muzzle and it was generally thought that was the way to go for supersonic rounds and the tight stacks like what is in the M4-2000 cutaway were better performers for subsonic rounds. However the M4-2000 like above picture was an excellent performer, a similar stack was used in the 308 SDN6 and they were claiming better 300blk subsonic performance and equal 308 (supersonic) performance compaired to the older, larger 308 SD. |
|
Quoted:
I'm building a Form 1 can and I paying the most attention to the M4-2000 design. Here is a older cut away, which one does this match (this cut away is old) M4-2000 cut in half: http://i57.tinypic.com/jq126b.jpg Yes, those baffles are the "new" post 2009 design. Why did AAC change from the thick, scalloped 3 baffle design to this thin, simplistic 7 baffle design? My guess is $$$. |
|
Quoted:
Yes, those baffles are the "new" post 2009 design. Why did AAC change from the thick, scalloped 3 baffle design to this thin, simplistic 7 baffle design? My guess is $$$. Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm building a Form 1 can and I paying the most attention to the M4-2000 design. Here is a older cut away, which one does this match (this cut away is old) M4-2000 cut in half: http://i57.tinypic.com/jq126b.jpg Yes, those baffles are the "new" post 2009 design. Why did AAC change from the thick, scalloped 3 baffle design to this thin, simplistic 7 baffle design? My guess is $$$. Because it is better. The SDN-6 followed suit. Previously it was generally thought that this type was only better for subsonic ammo, but I think most of the modern 5.56 cans have gone this way, and now the 308 cans are following. Here is a cutout of the Surefire 5.56 can. Notice on both tight baffles that are .375-.450 range with vent ports in the baffles, these are two of the best performing 5.56 cans. 
|
|
Quoted:
I have a pre-2010 "M4 2000 Mod 8" suppressor that has three thick baffles with scalloped edges on the baffle pass through openings. A friend of mine has a new M4 2000 that appears to have seven copperish colored simplistic/old school baffles that do not look very durable. Anybody know anything about the design change? Then your silencer is not a Mod 08 can. Mod 08 was AAC-speak for when they switched all their 5.56 and 7.62 cans to stamped fluted cone baffles. The only Mod 08 can with a flat/scalloped baffle was the M4-1000, and only the blast baffle was flat/scalloped, the rest of its baffles were fluted cones. If you have a silencer with all flat baffles, it is not Mod 08. Does it have a flat front or the "bunghole" front cap? I assure you your friend's cone baffles are plenty durable, they are made of the same material found in the space shuttle's rocket nozzles. |
|
Quoted:
Then your silencer is not a Mod 08 can. Mod 08 was AAC-speak for when they switched all their 5.56 and 7.62 cans to stamped fluted cone baffles. The only Mod 08 can with a flat/scalloped baffle was the M4-1000, and only the blast baffle was flat/scalloped, the rest of its baffles were fluted cones. If you have a silencer with all flat baffles, it is not Mod 08. Does it have a flat front or the "bunghole" front cap? I assure you your friend's cone baffles are plenty durable, they are made of the same material found in the space shuttle's rocket nozzles. Quoted:
Quoted:
I have a pre-2010 "M4 2000 Mod 8" suppressor that has three thick baffles with scalloped edges on the baffle pass through openings. A friend of mine has a new M4 2000 that appears to have seven copperish colored simplistic/old school baffles that do not look very durable. Anybody know anything about the design change? Then your silencer is not a Mod 08 can. Mod 08 was AAC-speak for when they switched all their 5.56 and 7.62 cans to stamped fluted cone baffles. The only Mod 08 can with a flat/scalloped baffle was the M4-1000, and only the blast baffle was flat/scalloped, the rest of its baffles were fluted cones. If you have a silencer with all flat baffles, it is not Mod 08. Does it have a flat front or the "bunghole" front cap? I assure you your friend's cone baffles are plenty durable, they are made of the same material found in the space shuttle's rocket nozzles. I forgot to mention, my M4 2000 was originally an M4 1000 that I had upgraded to the M4 2000 51T ratchet system. The baffles are thick and flat with the scalloped opening. Wondering if all of the baffles in the newer design are inconel or just the blast baffle. |
" />
|
Quoted:
I forgot to mention, my M4 2000 was originally an M4 1000 that I had upgraded to the M4 2000 51T ratchet system. The baffles are thick and flat with the scalloped opening. Wondering if all of the baffles in the newer design are inconel or just the blast baffle. The M4-1000 Mod 08 was an inconel flat/scalloped blast baffle and two stainless cones with a stainless front endcap. The M4-2000 Mod 08 is 7 inconel cone baffles and an inconel front endcap. The SPR/M4 was basically an M4-2000 Mod 08 baffle stack with a reflex chamber. The new 556-SD, SR-5, and Ranger 3 have all-inconel baffles and endcaps. As noted above, your baffles are not Mod 08. They are probably not all inconel, though there is a fair chance the blast baffle is inconel. |
Armory Sponsor