The below video is by Desert Tech and is a discussion of their experiences with other companies’ products that led them to developing their own suppressors.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_u9WzPFsco

The point that caught my attention is their claim that all suppressors with quick detach mounts they tested degraded precision significantly, (evidently) because they all tended to loosen and require tightening after a string of fire. I don’t recall ever seeing that claim made in the discussions I’ve seen about QD mount suppressors, and which seem to be very popular. So, that’s my first question: Do QD mount suppressors really degrade accuracy? Or are they not used on precision rifles, and therefore any effect doesn’t matter with the type of rifles they’re commonly used on?

The DTSS suppressor featured in the video evidently threads directly onto a Desert Tech muzzle device. They didn’t really solve the problem of the QD mount system, and therefore the claim seems somewhat misleading. “We needed to field a rifle with a QD mount suppressor, but none provided adequate accuracy, so we made our own—with a direct thread mount,” and the last phrase not stated.

My other question is about something that was mentioned briefly. The rep claimed that the design of their suppressors cause them to tighten as the gun is fired. Based on my own experience I know that direct thread cans can loosen, but any insights about how such a self-tightening system would work? Any thoughts about how tight and difficult to remove such a device might become?

I have a Thunder Beast direct thread suppressor, and although it doesn’t degrade precision, I can’t say that it increases it either. Of course, their claimed 1/4 MOA improvement would be difficult to see at the distances I usually shoot at, and my test groups are usually fired at just 100 yards.

I would be interested in comments about any of all this.

Well, their testing is their testing. I'll go with my experience.

For a heavier profile barrel on a bolt action rifle, I don't experience major shifts in POI with cans from Thunderbeast and Surefire Socom. Mainly 1/4 MOA down, might have had one barrel 1/2 MOA down, some barrels with no POI shift. My SOCOM cans will shift a less beefy AR15 barrel down 1/2 MOA, more or less. IIRC there was no change in POI by attaching a can to my 20" Krieger DCM profile AR15 barrel, which is a beefy AR15 barrel.

I do see roughly a 1/4 MOA improvement in accuracy with cans, versus bare muzzle. Now it might be related to the way the can reduces recoil -- I can't be certain. I have definitely not experienced worse accuracy with my TBAC and Surefire cans. I have not experienced reduced accuracy when I used brakes -- mainly APA Fat Bastard.

I do not shoot DTA rifles as accurately or as consistently as I do more traditional designs. I've spent more trigger time with their bolt actions than with the semi-autos. In a Rifles Only precision class held in NE Colorado, the instructor asked me to sight in another student's relatively new 308 DTA. I fired a lot of round through that rifle over a 1+ hour lunch break. Finally figured that out that it required a very hard hold -- lots of pressure into the shoulder to stabilize the POI, and a lot of loading the bipod. By comparison, I shot my 308 Defiance-Bartlein-McMillan rifle accurately and repeatably with hard-soft-free recoil holds -- just didn't matter which.

My SOCOM QD mounts are rock solid. One issue with SOCOM mounts is that after 100 rounds or so, they can build up enough carbon that removal options include whacks with a rubber hammer and firing a round so that the can tumbles down range.

My TBAC cans don't have a secondary lock. Yes, they can come loose. POI shifts straight down when they become loose, and it's a large enough shift to really notice. Yes, it can be irritating over the course of a long shooting day, if I don't check the can's tightness here and there.

*****
I hear solid engineering arguments from DTA. I suspect marketing hype.

Thanks for your informative response as usual, fritz.

quote:

Originally posted by fritz:
Finally figured that out that it required a very hard hold -- lots of pressure into the shoulder to stabilize the POI, and a lot of loading the bipod.

And especially this. I haven’t paid much attention to the DT rifles, but your comment is the sort of thing their fans are unlikely to mention—assuming they even recognize it.

I have a new 308 autoloader that I’ve fired only a few rounds with, but the results thus far have been … disappointing. I’m planning to try different ammunition types when outside conditions here improve, but you’ve remarked before about how heavier-recoiling autos can be more difficult to shoot well. I’ll try adjusting my technique if the other ammo doesn’t improve things.

DT has a pretty sketchy reputation on testing their guns and building them correctly, so without a whole bunch more data about their testing I'm not sure about their data gathering on this issue.
But I (think) I run mostly the same suppressor strategy as fritz. TB on bolts (in my case cb mount ultra 9's if it matters) and surefire QD on semi.
For my needs the only issue is repeatability and not shift when unsuppressed. I don't shoot unsuppressed except in the most unusual circumstances. And I have found that I can remove and remount the TB or Surefire with the changes that result are so small they are below any need to adjust for what I need in terms of accuracy. YMMV of course.
In terms of the mount question there are a lot of mounts that 'self tighten' and/or taper mounts that accomplish the same thing in different ways. As I understand at least some of the self tightening designs do that by having the gas flow put torque in the anti off direction through the can. But this question is best answered by KSGM as I just use the two QD's I mentioned and surefire has a latch so its never an issue.

The OSS silencers use a self-tightening device/silencer relationship; it does work. As Sigfreund guessed though, it does make them hard to remove; especially when hot/warm. There are discussions and videos online about it.

I would agree that the DT system is QD. The Rearden/Q/SRX mounting interfaces are the same way. I think QD can be defined as any silencer mounting system that doesn't leave the bare muzzle threads exposed after removal, and affords some performance (flash-hiding or recoil-reducing) in the silencer's absence. That being said, I have seen thread protectors for this style of mount, which seems a bit tedious, while also being a sort of admission that those exposed device threads are more prone to damage than some other QD mounts might be.

A better understanding of chronology would help here; if these efforts by DT are recent, then they're not doing anything new or "cutting edge". If they did all this testing and engineering fifteen years ago, then it'd be a different story. The presentation is vague; I suspect he's not talking about what we know as contemporary offerings from brands like TBAC and Surefire. That Remington rifle was called the 2010, right? That means this testing would have been conducted about fifteen years ago.

I understand that he's being polite by not naming the makes/models he perceived problems with, but it saps some of his credibility. I am sure Surefire was tested; probably TBAC too. I am unsure how those brands would have had the poor performances he alluded to. The appropriate model being tested would have been an important factor. A friend has a .30 Surefire titanium silencer; SF manufactures that silencer to a higher degree of precision than the flagship hard-use cans. I am sure it would perform better in a precision application than the flagship cans. But the timeline would affect this scenario, as I don't think SF made than can fifteen years ago.

The stuff he's saying makes sense, but it's nothing that any other company with half-a-brain wouldn't realize as well. Did he make mention of timelines in the video sigfreund shared, and I just missed it?

This video may provide needed context...



If, in the video sigfreund shared, he's talking about silencer R&D he did fifteen years ago, and using it to try to sell current-production items of the same design, the comparisons he's drawing to peer manufacturers aren't relevant, because they're in the context of that old timeline. Those peers' cans likely no longer exhibit the same performance shortcomings he saw over a decade ago.

I am admittedly wary of DT in general, due to their weird Mormon connections; though that doesn't change anything about my above speculations.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: KSGM,

Thanks for all the discussion.
Some things are clearer now.

But although it depends on the definitions, the TBAC suppressor I have also screws onto a proprietary muzzle device, either brake or flash hider. When I bought it originally it screwed directly to the muzzles of my rifles, but after some time the company offered a conversion to go to their muzzle devices. That offered more flexibility because although a muzzle device was then required, the original muzzle threading didn’t matter. The Sako TRG-22s and the original Tikkas I owned had metric muzzle threading, but the later Tikkas have Imperial (English, American?) threads. Without TBAC’s conversion, I wouldn’t be able to use the suppressor on any of my rifles except the oldest T3 that I still have.

Because the TBAC can must still be screwed onto the brakes (that’s all I have), that doesn’t seem very “quick” detach. I have no experience with any other type of attachment system, but I’ve always thought that QD meant some sort of bayonet-type mechanism that requires only releasing a lock of some sort and then a single partial turn like a “bayonet” mount camera lens rather than a screw mount (now an ancient style in camera lenses).

Am I wrong about all that?

I think "quick" detach is sometimes used to mean its faster than direct thread. And in most cases all these various tapers etc. have way less threads (and courser threads) than direct muzzle threads. But it doesn't mean they are quick detach at least to me. A 3 lug is definitely quick detach (push and twist and done), a surefire mount is qd to me (line up and tighten less than a revolution), a CB TB mount is not quick detach its several full revolutions. The other options vary on where they fall in between.
Forgetting the words definition for a minute like lots of attributes of suppressor systems they vary a lot in what it takes to get them on and off. I don't happen to put a high priority on 'fast', I'd much rather have it be 'easy' meaning you don't have to battle carbon locking and other issues.

I also don't put an emphasis on speed. I have a pretty good imagination, but I find it difficult to conjure a scenario that has someone needing to install or remove a silencer with a quickness, out of practical/tactical necessity. Maybe a sniper team comes across a target of opportunity that is out of range of their carbines, and needs to assemble their precision rifle with haste? Maybe damaged weapons are being abandoned or destroyed in the field during a retreat, and still-serviceable items like silencers are being hastily removed?

That being said, I maintain that "QD" means the silencer/rifle interface is one that doesn't leave the rifle with bare muzzle threads when the silencer is removed, and likely also has a brake or flash-hiding performance aspect in the silencer's absence.

The "Q" in QD shouldn't be interpreted literally, IMO. But, if you install a DT can like I do (with a strap wrench with the barrel in a vise), it could be taken somewhat literally anyway.

Again thanks for all the explanations.
My suppressor experience is limited to firing a relatively limited number of rounds at a slow pace with bolt action rifles, so these other issues are useful to know.

And to add to the comment about speed, I have watched many videos of hunters who have suppressors on their rifles in the US and various foreign countries, and they all carry their rifles with the cans attached all the time. I’ve never experienced any detectable POI shifts after removing and attaching my suppressor to precision rifles, but despite the extra length and weight that a can adds, I would think that a hunter would want not only for everything to be ready for immediate use, but also not changing anything after a final zero check.