I agree with your comment about TBAC's approach to describing the performance of their silencers; the product pages on their site are very informative and down-to-earth.

I suppose I do see where TBAC's coming from , with the exclusively .30 bore Dominus. Considering the bulk of their work has been in the precision-oriented arena, where back pressure isn't as much of a factor, they see the negligible sound performance difference as a very good reason to stick with the reduced pressure of the .30 bore on a 5.56 semi-auto.

I think the SURG cycle, and similar testing, carries more weight than you imply. Consider the Surefire silencers; the draw is their adoption by SOCOM, due to their indestructible reputation. Folks are attracted to Surefire cans because they are "the best" duty-grade hard-use silencer. They got the reputation because of performance in the SURG testing, which resulted in adoption. Regardless of whether or not a civilian is going to take advantage of this superior performance threshold, they still like to have "the best". Also, a decent portion of the silencer buying/shooting civilians salivate over the items that aren't marketed toward them, and pay wild prices for them (KAC); these items almost always fall into the hard-use category.

Back to the crux of the thread...

It's interesting that a secondary latch is seemingly required for SURG success. In a world where engineers are always "perfecting" things, I think it's interesting that they choose to omit something that is likely an easy addition. The thread and taper designs are being touted as the no-nonsense, perfected silencer mount approach; a simple threading and perfect gas seal on the taper, and you're good-to-go. It wouldn't be hard to add a redundant latch to the design, without making any compromise but a bit of length (not OAL to the weapon) and weight. And... cost. Maybe therein lies the reason; I suspect a given silencer, or HUB mount, would jump at least $100, with the addition of a redundant latch mechanism.

The bottom line is I'd be curious about the performance of a Q or Rearden mount in the SURG test. They talk about those mounts like they're the be-all end-all, and that implies performance across the board; not performance within the undefined confines of what they think is "enough", or what they perceive to be the buyers' needs.

Speaking of mounts...B&T just released their HUB adapter for Surefire SOCOM mounts. If my math is correct, if you have guns setup for an existing Surefire RC2, but would like the option of low backpressure shooting as well, you can get a Silencerco Velos, Velos K, or the new Huxwrx Ventum 5.56, and add the B&T HUB adapter. This is very interesting to me, as I am flush with SOCOM mounts. I can't tell from the pic, but I dont know if the B&T rotex SF mount has the same latch as normal Surefire SOCOM suppressors. Time will tell.

https://bt-parts.com/sd-adpsft...adapter/#description


Edited to add: I know the RC3 exists, but for $1750, it may as well not. And I love my RC2.

A couple of thoughts. First the surefire RC2 is not only very tough but actually pretty quiet in comparison to many others. Its several db quieter than a Dominus on a short barrel MK18. My local crack dealer is always advising people to just get the .30 cal surefire can as its much more versatile. But I regularly point out that its louder and in the case of surefire lots louder when running 5.56. (note all surefire sound level discussions get odd since the muzzle device you are using makes unbelievable differences in the sound, I always refer to using the 3prong).
But as you say back to mounts. TBAC says you need a different mount to pass the SURG cycle. And for sure the mounts that you can guess pass like the QDC have a latch. But TBAC offer their cans with the older CB style of which I have quite a few. But you really don't get any guidance on what rate of fire makes the secondary latch required. Its really a general case question. I've no practical experience as I run almost exclusive mounts that have a latch (surefire) or 3lug on semi's. Neither of which can come loose. If you run keymo or Q is it tighten once and done for the day or check it every 3 mags or what?

quote:

B&T just released their HUB adapter for Surefire SOCOM mounts.

I'm glad this is now out (sort of anyway its a preorder), but I'm thinking to get mine attached to a B&T suppressor. The mount is $400. The complete suppressor with the mount is $900 so that's a complete 5.56 can from a top tier mfg. for $500.

quote:

Originally posted by hrcjon:
I'm glad this is now out (sort of anyway its a preorder), but I'm thinking to get mine attached to a B&T suppressor. The mount is $400. The complete suppressor with the mount is $900 so that's a complete 5.56 can from a top tier mfg. for $500.

I am sure the B&T Suppressors are quality. I have a few B&T products and they are terrific. My issue with specifically their RBS Suppressors seems to be weight. Unless I am misreading their specs, the RBS variants are all pretty heavy. The Velos/Ventums all seem to rely on Titanium (although that has its own issues), and for more of a range/recreation can, the reduced weight would be my main reason for avoiding the B&T RBS.

I'm not sure your sensitivity on weight. The RC2 is 17oz. The full size SRBS is 18. And for that you get HUB. The Ti version of the SRBS is 12 but as you say Ti has its own set of issues.
I don't think its out of line overall.

Back to mounts. I know KAC, SF and TBAC have a secondary locking mount. Who else?

Maybe we should change the terminology to "deliberate mount" or "interference mount"; the goal is to differentiate between mounts that merely rely on a coarse thread and friction against a taper, and mounts that require a more deliberate attachment.

The word "secondary" really doesn't necessarily apply to the KAC and Surefire, as the securing method performed is the only action in the attachment process, other than dropping the can onto the muzzle.

The TBAC is a true secondary latch, as it is quite literally an added measure, on top of their existing mount interface of thread and taper.

When considered this way, there are many deliberate mounts; some of them also true secondary, and some not. The SiCo ASR and Rugged mounts utilize a twist collar after a thread/taper mount. The Sig SLX/SLH mounts as well, I believe. These could be considered true secondary.

Really, even mounts with detents or any sort would qualify as deliberate, even if it isn't a distinctly separate action. Mounts like the YHM, SiCo MAAD, AAC tooth mount, and the Dead Air Keymo all have passive mechanisms that are automatically engaged and either take a very deliberate application of force to undo (YHM, MAAD, Keymo), or require a detent disengagement prior to unscrewing (AAC). I'd wager none of these mounts coming off the gun are going to be a silencer's undoing in a SURG test.

The KAC NT4 and Griffin M4SD have gates and secondary mechanisms on top of that.

Really only the solely thread/taper mounts, direct thread, and mounts like the HALO could be subject to coming undone during prolonged testing under conditions like the SURG cycle.

Of course even a silencer with a deliberate mechanism could become free to rotate, if the mechanism fails.

I wish I knew more about some of these from seeing or using them in real life. But my meaning of secondary is that you cannot (or shooting can't) unscrew the can without some other independent action. For example on the surefire you have to push the unlock tab or it has to fail. That isn't true for like Keymo twist on and twist off. So I assume it can loosen on its own.

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

Mounts like the Keymo, MAAD, and YHM do only require a twisting action to attach and remove. However, there are aggressive spring-loaded detent components that would likely make it impossible for the silencer to "walk off" under even the most adverse shooting conditions.

The below-linked thread has relevant discussion.

https://sigforum.com/eve/forum...510094705#6510094705