What makes one silencer mount design superior or inferior to another? Why is the HUB standard appealing? Do we pursue a silencer because of it's performance, and contend with whatever mount it has? Or do we place a high value on a mount, and figure whatever can it's attached to is likely on par with it's peers?

What are desirable performance aspects of a mount interface? I can only opine on the ones I have experience with, of course; but I can likely draw some broader conclusions which can be applied in a more general sense as well. There can be no clear winner or loser, as everyone will hold certain aspects in different regard.

AAC 51T I am not crazy about. If you chase that last click, in pursuit of a super solid feel, you may not get that sucker off. If you are smart enough not to chase that click, you'll need to be content with a, we'll say, seemingly rattley silencer. It does rattle, but not enough to be any sort of problem.

Gemtech Halo style NATO pocket/collar. They can be a bear to remove; especially if you've got lights hanging out, prohibiting a good grip on the collar. They also make for a somewhat longer OAL, due to the fact the muzzle device can't be enveloped by the silencer itself. There is a varied array of compatible devices, and most of them are much cheaper than other silencer mount devices.

NATO gate style, as found on Griffin M4SD and KAC NT4. Though both of those use a gate, they are a bit different. The KAC does not take advantage of the NATO spec devices, as it requires a notch for an indexing pin, and their secondary latches are different. This style hits on what I think is an advantageous performance aspect: not needing to rotate the silencer body. The ability to work a latch, and then pull (or dump) straight off, saves the user from having to grasp a hot silencer (if it's hot).

OSS (or other "taper mounts" like Griffin, Dead Air Xeno, etc). You have to turn the silencer body, and there's no redundant latch. I am not crazy about it. Something like the OpsInc Model 12 would fall in this category as well. I have never had the OSS or OCM5 come loose, and I don't necessarily expect them to, so maybe the lack of a latch isn't a big deal.

SiCo ASR. You gotta turn it, but it does have a secondary latch. I've never been crazy about it, and I'll never have one. I have experience with it, due to my wife and friends having them.

Surefire fast attach. Has been documented as "carbon locking". Otherwise is simple to use; easy one-handed operation and doesn't require turning the silencer body. This mount is also known to leak gas out the rear of the silencer.

I don't have experience with Rugged, Keymo, KAC QDC, and many others, outside of handling them at the gun store.

I don't know that one has any clear advantage over any other. SF advocates will tell you anything can "carbon lock", and I've read users of other mechanisms' reports of locked conditions. I like not having to turn the silencer. However, even though the mount interface doesn't require turning the can, I often need to twist the Griffin M4SD, to get it past carbon that has built up.

Those of you with experience with two or more mount designs: which among them do you prefer, and why?

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

got to like the surefire remedy on a carbon locked can, unlock and shoot a round. keymo has suggestions of hammers and other ideas.
In the end they all suck in some minor or major way.
I've learned to deal with the issues of each. You have an RC2 so you know the surefire issues. I don't own a full auto and am not normally a mag dump kind of person so it hasn't really been a major issue to me.
If we could just get HK to make a 3lug for rifles>>>

The Gemtech (and GSL) Bi-Lock is very similar to HK three-lug.

quote:

Gemtech (and GSL) Bi-Lock

Has same issues I'm worried about on hub no spec for length. and no sealing surfaces so I bet it sucks for carbon.

I can only comment on those that I have and my experiences therein.

My original rifle can is a SilencerCo Saker 762; this was when the cans came with the MAAD mount. At first it was fine, but after a while it got to where it didn't like to come off after a range session. Several times the can adaptor actually unscrewed from the Saker body and was left on the mount. I finally got fed up with the issue and contacted SiCo about replacing it with the ASR mounts (which they were doing for free at the time). The ASR (as you know) is a screw on system that then has a locking ring that must be turned. This is almost identical to the more recent Rugged mounts and adaptors that utilize the same system (albeit with a more substantial and thus easier to grasp rocking ring).

Meanwhile the original MAAD scheme has progressed and is what now know as the Keymo system from Dead Air.

But why is it that the ASR shares some many features with the Rugged system and the MAAD and Keymo or so similar?

Well, Henry Graham was president of SWR back in 2011 when SilencerCo bought them. When SilencerCo took over one of the products that was brought into the SiCo product line from SWR was the Specwar can. This can utilized the SWR designed ASR mount. Fast forward to 2017 when Henry Graham and SilencerCo parted ways, shortly thereafter Henry started a new silencer company...Rugged Suppressors.

As for the MAAD/Keymo connection, well that's Mike Pappas. Mike was integral to the design of the Saker while with SilencerCo. He left and started his own company Dead Air; and it's little surprise that he took the original Saker mount and improved upon it for his new company to create the Keymo mounting system.

I'll end by saying that while I think the Keymo mount is much better than the MAAD, I still find it has some of the same deficiencies of being an absolute bear to take off while hot, but at least it hasn't unscrewed itself (yet). To that end though I haven't figured out why all the hype around the Keymo mount there for a while. I think more recent developments with DA have soured a lot of the community on their products.

Of those that I own I find the Rugged mounts to be the most user friendly.

I'm not super familiar with the Rugged mounts, but at first glance they appear to use a similar design to the Dead Air Xeno mounts that I use.

https://ruggedsuppressors.com/...t/7-62-muzzle-brake/

https://deadairsilencers.com/product/xeno-brake/

Are they really that different?

quote:

But why is it that the ASR shares some many features with the Rugged system and the MAAD and Keymo or so similar?

Thank you for sharing that back story.

quote:

Are they really that different?

Xeno lacks a secondary latch; Rugged has a collar that clinches the taper ring.

I almost always get a chuckle, when a manufacturer touts a new mount design. The most recent one that I can recall was Griffin's "Dual Lok". I thought why in the heck do we need another type of mount? I suppose it was due to their submission in the HRT trials that Hux ultimately won; though Hux didn't develop a new mount. Griffin could have refined their gate attachment and been better off, IMO.

Many consider Otter Creek to be making some very nice silencers; they don't even bother with a mount. I am not a huge HUB fan, but OC is definitely clever in not bothering to develop and incorporate a mount. They know their market, and they focus on creating an apparently good silencer, while leaving the customer to pick what existing mount interface they want to use.

quote:

Several times the can adaptor actually unscrewed from the Saker body and was left on the mount.

The primary concern with HUB and mounts that require twisting the silencer.

I will have a KAC QDC one day. Likely not one of the new PRT silencers, as I think I still have more sense than money. The QDC mount is cool as heck. I don't know that it is necessarily better than everything else, but it does seem advantageous. It doesn't require turning the silencer body, is supposedly resistant to locking, and apparently seals well. It seems to offer SF "fast attach" functionality with none of the SF downsides. The only thing I suspect is that you need to turn the collar more than you do on a SF; I do like the quick 1/2 turn of the fast attach.

I don't follow KAC but given your interest I looked. I can easily see the suppressors available but I couldn't actually see the rifle side FH mount anywhere. Even on the KAC site. what's a good link to see how it works?

Garand Thumb had a video about the KAC rifle and suppressor that discussed the mounting and ball Bearing interface.

Thanks, I actually couldn't find that one among the very long GT video list, but that search actually turned up pictures of the applicable mount. Not sure I'd be a fan of that index pin but I probably wouldn't care as I tend to just run suppressed.

Taken from the Surefire thread, and moved to the highly relevant atmosphere of this thread.

Me quoting hrcjon:

quote:

only one of a few that has survived the socom testing cycle

It seems to be quite difficult to determine what silencers have and haven't passed the SOCOM test, without industry insider knowledge.

hrcjon's reply:

a few people provide the information publicly but unless you are inside I would guess you really don't know for sure even with that. But what interests me in this conversion about mounts is the discussing over at Thunderbeast that they have had to design a specific mount to get it to pass. And the normal TB mount will not pass (and it looks to me from a design point like 80% of the other mounting systems). Take a look.

New comment:

It seems clear that a positive latch mechanism of some kind is required, for success in the SOCOM test. TB's normal mount seems to be a thread and taper combo, as is common in many brands today. Their Dominus SR silencer employs a locking collar of sorts, which apparently makes the difference in the SOCOM test. So, perhaps it's safe to assume that a thread/taper mount eventually loosens, during the SOCOM test. That or a secondary latch is a requirement before a design is even considered for testing.

I discussed Thunder Beast mounts with Zak Smith for quite awhile, prior to ordering my last TBAC can. I have TBAC cans in both the original threaded style and the newer CB brake threaded style. Both will loosen after many rounds, although less quickly with the CB style. The cans loosen more quickly with a gas gun than with a bolt action. Once a can builds up a little carbon from shooting, a really tight hand twist keeps them good for the few hundred rounds I've shot in a day.

But....I've had threaded cans slowly loosen during matches, and I'll never forget the poor results. As in long distance POI shifting down... portions of an MOA to multiple MOAs. So I test my cans here and there over the course of a long day of shooting.

Zak said that the SR attachment is essentially mandatory to pass SOCOM tests. Paraphrasing his comments -- the can has to be idiot-proofed with a secondary latch for the GI.

So, the secondary latch being mandatory to pass SOCOM tests is a technically needless aspect, for the sake of "idiot-proofing"? Or is it a necessity because, as you commented, thread-and-taper silencers can come loose, and that's not something a soldier needs to be worrying about, in the midst of his soldierly activities?

I'd wager it's less about "idiot-proofing" and more about addressing a shortcoming that requires a user to touch a hot silencer in the midst of an engagement, to ensure it's tightness.

All that being said, I find it curious that mounts like the "Plan B" and Rearden are gaining so much traction. Surely they didn't magically crack the thread-and-taper code, while TBAC are still scratching their heads.

Evidently it's both.

The top brass likes TBAC's accuracy and repeatability. They like the relatively low weight and the great sound suppression. In tests, they intentionally try to cross thread cans while attaching them. They intentionally partially attach cans to see what occurs.

Zak said they want cans that can be handled like a gorilla with a hammer, then still perform flawlessly. He said we civilian competitors don't need the secondary locking rings. We take better care of equipment -- even those who run more rounds through their rifles than most GIs, and have higher accuracy demands than GIs.

Temporary drift...

fritz, given your somewhat inside access at TBAC, can you answer two questions?:

Why don't they make a Dominus 5.56 bore silencer? If I had to guess, I'd say they have, and it didn't provide a worthwhile performance advantage over the .30 bore. (They do touch on this on their site; they imply the flow advantage of the .30 on a 5.56 is a worthwhile tradeoff.)

Does their attitude and/or production process permit the construction of a "special order" Dominus without the spiral design on the tube?

The TBAC cans are NOT cheap; whew. They were asking RC3 and KAC PRT MSRP before those cans were on the map. I understand the titanium construction is largely to blame, and the weight is significantly lighter than the RC2/3, but that is a hefty price to pay.

Here's a thread from Reddit, concerning the TBAC Dominus PEW testing. I am not a PEW disciple, and honestly don't fully grasp their testing procedures and results, but it seems telling that so many others are. I dunno. I like to think I care too much about shooting to care about petty product comparisons, but I do like to be a kind of a nerd/collector, when it comes to silencers. Not good for the bank account; Lord knows my $1600 would be better spent on ammo than another can.

https://www.reddit.com/r/NFA/c...eview_thunder_beast/

I do find it very important that TBAC informs the customer that at-ear performance of the K is identical to the full-size. I think people are quick to forget that the rifle's action working back-and-forth right next to our ears is quite loud indeed! This is relevant even when considering silencers from the target's perspective; even the quietest .300BO setup still makes that racket. If I was to vigorously work the action on an AR15 a few times, I am sure someone a few rooms away, or even over a couple hundred meters away, is going to take note. Outdoor distances are obviously significantly impacted by terrain, veg, buildings, atmospheric conditions, etc.

TBAC implies that the K has the same at-ear performance as the full size, even on a 10.3", which is impressive. They don't outright say it though.

Returning to the core of this thread, I'll say that it's neat that TBAC makes the mount components "user serviceable"; they say it's armorer level, but they make the instructions available on their site. It would be nice if the Surefire mount could be relatively easily disassembled for cleaning.

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

I don't have inside access to TBAC. I just know Zak from attending a number of his Competition Dynamics matches, and ordering a few TBAC cans. It takes a little time to get to know Zak. One has to roll with the punches that occur during CD field matches, then not jump all over his team afterwards. I didn't compete last year, so I haven't talked to Zak recently.

I did tour TBAC's Wyoming manufacturing facility a couple of years ago. The ops manager said their orders were stacked up the wazoo. They were balancing working on new designs and filling orders. A number of CNC machines running lots of hours a day. I had no idea that many cans could be in one vault, waiting for approval. Unfortunately, no samples were given out after the tour -- not like visiting a brewery.

I won't speculate if TBAC does special orders.

Both Zak and his team told me that there are only slight sound suppression gains by going to smaller end caps. As in 2-3 dB. Yes, that is detectable to many humans -- if the sound levels are low enough. Like 70 vs 73 dB. But 137 vs 140 dB doesn't make a difference to the human ear, as both damage our hearing. As a result, I have only one dedicated 223 can -- one that I won at a match. The rest of my rifle cans (TBAC and Surefire) are .30 caliber, and I use them for anything from .223 to .308.

Researching silencers is funny. All the companies have their opinion of what's "important" and what's not.

A hard-use silencer is going to be chastised because of it's weight, sound performance, and perhaps lack of "flow". A maker that prioritizes sound, weight, and flow will likely dismiss hard-use testing.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
Researching silencers is funny. All the companies have their opinion of what's "important" and what's not.

To be fair, so do customers, be they civilians, military, LE, whoever. Silencer companies are businesses and design silencers to sell as many as they can to whatever market segment(s) they want to reach.

Indeed. I guess a large part of it is a lack of universal standards. It seems the PEW Science outfit is trying to standardize the sound, pressure, and flow evaluations. I suppose it's arguable that the SOCOM SURG test cycle could be a universal hard-use evaluation tool. The SURG cycle doesn't seem to be commonly utilized and discussed though.

I find it odd that TBAC won't do a 5.56 version of their offering(s) because the measured differences are small, but do in fact offer a 6.5 version of the Ultra (one of the models I use) even though the published difference is very small (2db).
On the Surg cycle I would venture that its a very tough test for many suppressors and not applicable for the majority of people, so why design and test to it if that's not your target market. I feel the same way about the marketing of 'full auto' rated that gets tagged on things. What amount of full auto is that 1 mag, 10 mags, a 200rd belt. The destruction is the heat load. Without a specification its just marketing bs.
AFAIK the vast majority of mfg. in this suppressor business do not provide any details that back up what they publish as specs. Especially on sound and durability. TBAC is exemplary in many ways.

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