I documented the Bixler nut diameter made by Shaw on my website here: https://c3junkie.com/?page_id=777
If you are too lazy to click on the link.  Here is a picture:


I don't have a Bixler from Shaw yet.
I have an original Bixler nut made by Tim Bixler and it has an OD of 1.125" and a length of 1"

Awesome, thanks!

1" long, 1.1280" diameter on my Shaw made, just like Amphibian posted.

+1

Same. Shaw has ignored my emails so I guess I'm waiting on Hansohn brothers version.

Attached File

90 Days today for me, since I ordered.  No response to email's, I'll probably try calling Monday.

I may try to order some cherry balmz.

I was told they yesterday that they would ship next week.  Hopefully that is true.

Attached File

Talked to them today.  "We had problems with the coating flaking off, they should ship this week, or early next week".

Same here. My YHM tri lug adapter has worked perfectly.

DLC coating flaking off?  That sucks.  
First it was over bored.
Now DLC.  

Just got a shipping email. Looks like my adapter is on the way.

Yeah think I'll wait for Hansohn Bros

Wondering if yours showed up?  

@Dr_Nimslow

Got shipping notification a few hours ago

Got the notification a little bit ago.  Mine is on the bus.  Woot Woot.

Nothing yet.

Mine should be here tomorrow. Ill post pics as soon as i can

I ordered (3) different thread pattern Bixler mounts from Shaw.  They are supposed to be delivered tomorrow.

I hope Shaw gets the mounting system correct. I ordered one last year and did not fit anything I owned: https://www.ar15.com/forums/armory/Shaw-Arms-Bixler-3-Lug-Adapter/20-544915/

Mine is scheduled to be here Friday.

Got it in. Attached File
Attached File
Attached File

Got mine today:
I'll check concentricity later

I received mine today also. Fit and finish look good. It's cerekoted vs being dlc or nitride coated. Not a big deal but figured it was worth mentioning. I didn't get a chance to test it on a factory 3 lug but it is extremely tight on the Hansohn 3 lug adapter. Concentricity was good with an OCL lithium and the Hansohn 3 lug on a S&W pcc. Ran out of time to test it in any other configurations on any other guns. Hopefully I'll get to mess with it some more this weekend. So far I'm happy with it overall.

Mine is delayed because of the giant storm in Omaha/ Eastern Nebraska.  Probably Monday or Tuesday now.

Not a fan of how it looks mounted on a MP5.

Im neither pro or con about it on my AP5.  
I would prefer it closer/tighter to handguard but prefer rock solid mounting more.
I had a piece of some flashing or something get into the threads and it started to lock up the threads. I had to carefully remove the nut and clean the threads.  I was concerned for a minute.  

One other thing I noticed is the supressor will rotate a little due to the larger slots in the nut. (or whatever its called).  You can tighten the supressor more.  Im not concerned per se just making note of it.

Agreed, but it fits the bill for what i needed it to do.

Put 120 rounds through it. No complaints thus far

I got to play with mine some more today. It fit well on about a dozen different host. Still a tad tight on the some of the Hansohn adapters but I attribute that to some of the carbon buildup on them. Concentricity with my R9's and my Lithium were good. Didn't get a chance to try it with my Bushwackers, my R45 or any of the Rex stuff but I see no reason why it wouldn't work well. I like it enough that I'll probably pick up another sometime down the road.

Just curious what advantage does this have over a standard 3 lug mount? I run a couple different 3 lug mounts and have yet to have any issues.

It's more secure, doesn't use springs, and for my specific case, lets me use tri lug with the specific handguard i prefer

Most 3 lug mounts use springs to keep tension on the connection.
insert muzzle device into suppressor, push to compress spring and twist to lock lugs.  
The nature of this spring loaded tension is a concern for some.

The bixler type completely removes any chance of supressor movement because there is no spring.  The nut is loosened enough so the muzzle can be inserted than twisted into the lug slots.
Then the suppressor is twisted to tighten down the suppressor against the muzzle lugs.  
This makes it very secure with little chance of any movement.

Its nowhere near as fast to install or remove though.
And some dont like the external locking nut.
It could be made the same diameter as the HUB diameter.

Thanks for the explanation. Now, is there a known issue with 3 lug failures due to the spring? If so I’ve never seen any.

My 3 lugs have a little movement but nothing that ever caused any issues. It seems the way that mounts that it’s something than can come loose, or am I wrong about that?

Im new to 3 lug and needed to get a mount adapter for my YHM R9.
It just so happened that I found this thread and after reading about the different mechanisms some time ago and I chose to go with a bixler type.

@amphibian is 1000x more experienced with these types of mounts and maybe he has some thoughts on it.

I have a R9 and a YHM 3lug mount, their 3 lug mount is most solid 3 lug I’ve seen and tried so far.

I have all the details already documented on my site here: https://c3junkie.com/?page_id=553
For those too lazy to click on the link, here is a copy and paste:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Due to age, both patents are expired.  Most manufactures seemed to have gravitated more to the Latka design.

Pro's to the Bixler mount:

•    No slop with the Bixler mount: There may be a slight rotational movement but no up/down or side-to-side slop that you can sometimes encounter on various implementations of the Latka design.  I don't think this is a slight against the Latka design.  More an issue with variances in 3 lug mounts out there.  However, the Bixler design seems more tolerant of these variances since you can just tighten the collar and remove any slop .EX:  I have some combo's where a Latka mount may have a considerable amount of slop but if I put a Bixler 3 lug mount on the same 3 lugged barrel, it is rock solid.
•    Nothing to wear out on the Bixler design: no springs or o-rings to wear out on this design.
•    Nothing to get seized up from fouling which can happen on the Latka mounts   again, this may just be due to manufacturing tolerances
•    Possibly stronger as the original Bixler design had a steel nut (though Gemtech made them from aluminum)   I have run steel Bixler mounts on full auto .308's with no issues
•    It is the original taper mount that seems to be all the rage these days.  As mentioned in the patent, "the front end 25 of each lug is tapered inwardly to correspond to the angle of the chamfer 33 of the threaded member 30 (Note that the one's from Shaw don't seem to have much of a corresponding chamfer / taper while the original Bixler ones do, regardless, I don't find them coming loose even under full auto fire).
  

Con's to the Bixler mount:

•    Slower to mount/dis-mount
•    Requires you to access the rear nut IF the mount unscrews from the can body if tucked deep inside a rail.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

All that said, I have several spring loaded push / turn 3 lug mounts that also 'work fine'.   I have several that don't as well in that alignment was causing POI shifts.  I also have some that have fouled up over the years and cleaning them doesn't seem to help.  While I've had Bixler mounts that are even older and they are just rock solid with no concerns of fouling up and if made properly, no issues with alignment or even POI shifts depending on the baffle stack used.

I also really like how the Bixler mount uses such a small diameter nut that fits under just about every rail in existence.  A spring loaded push / turn mount is too fat to fit in these rails:

I see now, thanks for the detailed explanation.

Still patiently waiting for my shipping notification….

Me too from April 11 and May 20.

I'm one of those too lazy to visit your site. What keeps this thing from loosening up? The additional length and non-taper design appears to offer no benefit over direct thread on a Navy style tri lug.

I posted it in RED and Bold in my post above.  Here it is again,

"It is the original taper mount that seems to be all the rage these days.  As mentioned in the patent, "the front end 25 of each lug is tapered inwardly to correspond to the angle of the chamfer 33 of the threaded member 30 (Note that the one's from Shaw don't seem to have much of a corresponding chamfer / taper while the original Bixler ones do, regardless, I don't find them coming loose even under full auto fire)."


Regarding the additional length, this comes with increased performance with some cans as I posted here: https://www.ar15.com/forums/Armory/Short-Cash9K-Rad9-review/20-551586/
The Ca$9k sounds like shit with an internal 3 lug mount as the gas doesn't have time to expand like it does with a thread mount which has all the stellar reviews.

This there something like a YouTube video explaining how this bixler system works? I need it explained to me like I'm 12. I know there's no springs in it, but the patent drawing is confusing.

Other than it not taking up blast baffle volume and supposedly being a better lock up, it's long and adds OAL to my already long wolfman. I have a SP5k and I don't want to make it any longer. I may shorten the wolfman to get it closer to when it had a R9 on it (or put the r9 back on it).

We have mp5 MG at work that's trilugged with an obsidian 45 and it gets the shit beat out of it. No issues with the standard rugged trilug lockup.

I've also noticed this is the only place I've ever seen anyone mention it. Not a single customer has come in and asked me about this. So I'm curious why it's not talked about more.

I am curious how well the Bixler design works with the Wolfman vs a tri-lug. If I remember correctly the Dead Air design isn't seated quite as deep in the blast chamber as something like the current SiCo tri-lug design (older one was further back), so maybe there isn't a big difference on that suppressor.

I hear this all the time.... I get that it may look more aesthetically pleasing to have the 3 lug go inside the can but are you gaining any sound reduction doing that?  I'd say no.  I recall there were a bunch of threads about this back in the day at SWR when Matt Pallett was still there.  They didn't want to go internal but I think that was driven by customer demand for aesthetic reasons.  Back in the day, pistol caliber suppressors had their blast baffles placed accordingly for an external booster module or external 3 lug mount and when you went to a direct thread mount the distance from the muzzle to the blast baffle was all about the same.

My setup I posted above is pretty compact with pretty good sound reduction and super light weight but I can understand that certain combinations may push the length to be excessive.  Again, all comes down to your specific configuration.
We see posts all the time about baffle strikes with the Obsidian 9mm.  I'm sure using the Obsidian in 45 has no issues with that big bore aperture.

I've stated many times, the 'standard' push/turn 3 lug mounts are hit or miss.  With most of the time working fine.  I never said they don't work.  Nobody would be selling them if they didn't work.  I've been using various iterations of them for over 20 years now.  
As pictured below, the Bixler one has always worked 100% for me.  The next one to right of it also works great.  I think it has better design than the two on the right in that it is made from a solid chunk of aluminum and it has never fouled as the mechanism is shielded from fouling.  While the two on the right get stuck.
That said, I do have some that were made at a later date that were problematic where I would have flyers in accuracy that seem to come out of nowhere.  I only have maybe two of those that don't do that.  All of this is discussing the different 3 lug mounts for my MK9K / CT9KS as pictured below.
You may recognize the one on the far right.  I think the same OEM made them for Gemtech / SWR back in the day and used for various cans, not just the MK9K.  I've had bad luck with them fouling up.  I would clean them, put new o-rings in them etc.  But lockup was never solid.  I got tired of dealing with it and decided to standardize on the Bixler design years ago so I didn't have to worry about maintenance or lockup anymore and it does exactly that.  

I have a group of friends that are all running Bixler 3 lug mounts on full auto SMG's.  We have all been doing this for a long time.  I'm the only one out of the group that bothers to post anything on the Internet.

As I mentioned before Joe (previously of Curtis Tactical) and now with Shaw Armament, never heard of the Bixler either till I told him about it and shipped him mine to clone.  I recall that he wasn't a fan of 3 lug mounts till I told him about the Bixler and he got to see it for himself.  

I know Pew Science is a fan as well.  Don't know if it is because of my postings or what.

I presume most of you know who Kevin Brittingham is.  If you don't he is the founder of the original AAC.  I can't find it now but when he first starting doing his podcasts, there is an episode where he says the Bixler mount is the best 3 lug mount ever made and if Q ever comes out with a 9mm SMG can, it will have a Bixler mount.  That is interesting as he didn't use them when he had AAC, maybe because the patent still being active back then, I don't know.  I don't know the history but I thought Kevin and/or his team at Sig was the first to start pushing the tapered barrels and mounts.  Which again, as I posted above, the Bixler mount is the OG of taper mounts from back in 1990.
(ETA, I do see that Q has the Erector9 now but I don't see a 3 lug mount option, who knows maybe he will do the Bixler as he said in his podcast).

It isn't talked about more because no major manufacturer uses them anymore.  The push / turn 3 lug mounts look cool w/ it's faster attachment but again, lock up is never going to be as solid as the Bixler.  Note that B&T has / had like what 3 different 3 lug mounting solutions.  One of them is basically a rip off of the Bixler.
I think it is the one pictured below.  Same as the Bixler except that they added a 'leaf' type spring that engages ratcheting teeth on the nut.

I think if Q does start using the Bixler again, it will gain popularity.

Also, depending on the materials used, I don't think there are any caliber restrictions with the Bixler design.  AWC I think is still around and they make the Bixler mount out of all stainless.  Joe uses Titanium and SS for the nut.
I have used an AWC all stainless 3 lug CQB can on a full auto .308 with no issues.  You will kill the spring temper on spring loaded 3 lug mount doing that and if the design uses o-rings, they will melt.

With Hansohn brothers jumping into the Bixler mount game, I would think it will also help.  I like more options...

Got it.  I'll have to play later this week.  I did a quick fitting, but not liking the looks.  It fits tight when tightened down, as it should.  But I'm able to still see some threads, which seems, ( not right ).  I'll have to look later today or tomorrow.

I hate to say, I'd appreciate one too.

It is normal to see a little.  I was trying to find a good picture off my website but nothing I have up there is a good close up.