I agree on the .300BLK barrel length being silly, on the 553. However, they utilize some sort of reflex silencer on it, which may provide an optimal setup; albeit one unavailable to us. I intend to make a shorty .300BLK on a US 556 receiver, eventually; I have had the chambered barrel blank and host receiver for a while, but have yet to get the ball really rolling with the gunsmith. I know some folks out there have cut down their SAN .300BLK 553 barrels, which is likely what I'd do, if I had one of those guns; I'm just not interested in that caliber enough to invest in that particular gun for it.
Posts: 2529 | Location: Northeast GA | Registered: February 15, 2021
Yep. I think there might be a reason for the longer barrel as far as reliability goes. I'd be interested to know if those who've cut down to 8-9" find them to run as they should. Certainly would need a 4-pos regulator to fine-tune operation.
Posts: 3179 | Location: Loudoun VA | Registered: December 21, 2014
Surely it's more a matter of dwell time, than barrel length. With a barrel that long, they could have gone with the 551 operating system, but didn't; no doubt due to the longer dwell time of the 553LB configuration. It's odd though, considering the efficiency of the 55X, that they'd have to do that. AR15s run into problems, when the muzzle gets too close to the gas port; the 553 and 551 are evidence that the Sigs aren't hindered to the same extent.
Posts: 2529 | Location: Northeast GA | Registered: February 15, 2021
Originally posted by KSGM: Surely it's more a matter of dwell time, than barrel length. With a barrel that long, they could have gone with the 551 operating system, but didn't; no doubt due to the longer dwell time of the 553LB configuration. It's odd though, considering the efficiency of the 55X, that they'd have to do that. AR15s run into problems, when the muzzle gets too close to the gas port; the 553 and 551 are evidence that the Sigs aren't hindered to the same extent.
yeah, if the 553 blk or 553r were shorter I'd prob opt for those. The krink/mp5 length on the 553SB is really convenient for me though. Diopters always look cooler too. I'll probably go for that when i can.
August has come and gone. I wish that book would come out too!
As to the 300 black out 553 barrel length, I was told the reason Sig made the rifle with a 12" barrel, was they didn't understand why anyone would want to lob 200 grain bullets that hit with for force of a 22 lr when it comes to energy. That made some sense to me and I just assumed the swiss were stuck on high velocity fun rather than making super quiet rounds.
Posts: 7746 | Location: West Jordan, Utah | Registered: June 19, 2007
"We are going to be offering the 5.56/7.62 RBS Suppressors for the SIG55X platforms this year. We will have the NATO flash hider and the locking collar version available.
Best regards,
B&T USA"
well, I'll definitely get one for my 550. is there any point to running subsonic 556 or is it best to just use standard loads.
B&T USA has released the Rotex cans in the USA that work with the the A2 mount. The mount on the Rotex is removeable correct? And the difference between the Rotex cans and the Swiss B&T can that fits the STGW 90 is just a different mount?
STGW 90 B&T
ROTEX-X 5.56MM B&T USA
This message has been edited. Last edited by: gw3971,
Posts: 7746 | Location: West Jordan, Utah | Registered: June 19, 2007
I believe you are correct, in saying the current-manufacture Rotex A2 mounts are removable from the silencer body. The STGW90-specific silencer's mount is not removable though, and seemingly not produced or sold separately from the silencer itself. The Rotex pictured in your post could be utilized on some of the current LB variants I have seen.
I sent you an email, regarding a couple 55X silencer-related things.
Posts: 2529 | Location: Northeast GA | Registered: February 15, 2021
KGSM, thanks for the e-mail. I don't have a can that uses the hub system and I don't have a 551 either.
I have a 553 LB that I am looking to suppress with a 1 piece barrel. Looks like the GP90 nato, and Gemtech halo, might work with it and I think the B&T Rotex will work with it. Would have been nice to get the B&T to use with the 550 and 551 but sounds like that wont work.
I think I will stop hoping for a 550 can as it is already damn long rifle. I will try and find a dealer here in Utah with a Rotex in stock to make sure.
Posts: 7746 | Location: West Jordan, Utah | Registered: June 19, 2007
Looks like 550 silencers are available from B&T USA now. I will probably pass for now as I'm tired of dealing with NFA red tape but would be nice to get a review here.
That's likely why there was an absence of options for years, and even now they're quite limited. The demand really isn't there. If someone made a one-off, everyone would rather have one from B&T; now that B&T makes one, we want to wait for reviews. It's a silencer made by a reputable silencer company. It's going to perform. It allows you to suppress something that was previously undoable. We said we wanted it, but we don't actually. Don't blame NFA red tape. Blame yourself for not wanting to invest in a can that has a narrow application.
Also, the linked suppressor is quite ambiguous. It says it's for a 550/551/553; that's literally impossible. It also has no drop-down menu from which to choose a silencer setup for one of those specific models. There is a FB group in which a member seemingly invested in a small run of B&T cans for the 550. Last time I looked, he was still trying to sell them. I approached GSL a couple years ago, looking to get a run of 551 cans made. The owner of GSL worked for Gemtech, back in the day of the "551 HALO", which apparently never really existed outside a prototype. I was on the verge of pitching the idea to a couple friends/investors, one of whom had an FFL that would have had exclusive distro rights for a year. I didn't follow-through, and I am glad. Proprietary silencers for the 550/551 get a lot of lip service among 55X enthusiasts, but it seems like few really want to invest in them.This message has been edited. Last edited by: KSGM,
Posts: 2529 | Location: Northeast GA | Registered: February 15, 2021
Originally posted by KSGM: That's likely why there was an absence of options for years, and even now they're quite limited. The demand really isn't there. If someone made a one-off, everyone would rather have one from B&T; now that B&T makes one, we want to wait for reviews. It's a silencer made by a reputable silencer company. It's going to perform. It allows you to suppress something that was previously undoable. We said we wanted it, but we don't actually. Don't blame NFA red tape. Blame yourself for not wanting to invest in a can that has a narrow application.
Also, the linked suppressor is quite ambiguous. It says it's for a 550/551/553; that's literally impossible. It also has no drop-down menu from which to choose a silencer setup for one of those specific models. There is a FB group in which a member seemingly invested in a small run of B&T cans for the 550. Last time I looked, he was still trying to sell them. I approached GSL a couple years ago, looking to get a run of 551 cans made. The owner of GSL worked for Gemtech, back in the day of the "551 HALO", which apparently never really existed outside a prototype. I was on the verge of pitching the idea to a couple friends/investors, one of whom had an FFL that would have had exclusive distro rights for a year. I didn't follow-through, and I am glad. Proprietary silencers for the 550/551 get a lot of lip service among 55X enthusiasts, but it seems like few really want to invest in them.
From what I'm told suppressing 5.56 isnt worth the squeeze. I only have a KAC for the usp45 tactical and I went with that because of the warranty, durability and that .45 is usually subsonic. That said I got redflagged so all of these are in jail right now but I don't know if its worth the effort and red tape to me to suppress my SG550 (if i get it back)
Originally posted by KSGM: It's a silencer made by a reputable silencer company. It's going to perform.
These two statements are not foregone conclusions. B&T is a reputable company. B&T USA is not B&T proper and doesn't necessarily use the same TDP; they have their own stuff and up until perhaps recently, subcontracted out their own designs to ODM/OEMs. Also, there's no guarantee it will perform.
I own a B&T USA suppressor for the APC-45; it's single use, won't work on any other gun. It's egregiously expensive and it's not quiet, at all. Not even close to being quiet even though all 45ACP is subsonic. Luckily, a friend made some adapters to get my less-than-half-the-cost TiRant-45 to work on B&T's proprietary 45acp 3-lug and now I get to have a quiet, suppressed 45acp.
The B&T can? Yeah, I'll never use it again and I've got $1500+ tied up in it between the stamp and the unit.
Posts: 3179 | Location: Loudoun VA | Registered: December 21, 2014
I understand your pessimism and your feelings inspired by your experience with that B&T can. I don't have a B&T can, but have always assumed they're nice. I am well aware that there's a lot of outsourcing and sub-contracting in the industry. I also believe what you're implying about B&T USA vs B&T Swiss. The situation, concerning a silencer for the 550, remains largely unaffected by these factors, IMO. It's a matter of beggars being picky; it's perhaps a matter of no one really wanting to spend even modest silencer money on a proprietary unit, to hang off a 20" gun. It's internet banter that quickly becomes crickets, when an offering is made. I know you're a member of the 550 FB group I mentioned earlier. Do you have any detailed info on that guy that apparently commissioned a run of silencers?
Posts: 2529 | Location: Northeast GA | Registered: February 15, 2021
This message has been edited. Last edited by: gw3971, 