Anything with low back pressure claims catches my eye, so I was curious about the Razor 5.56. I never had any intention of purchasing one, as I don't care to adopt their muzzle devices, and their cans don't appeal to me aesthetically; but I like learning about new silencer stuff. In comparing the Razor 5.56 to a Razor 7.62, the 5.56 almost IS a 7.62. The 5.56 has one less baffle and an endcap with a slightly smaller aperture. The baffle apertures are IDENTICAL in diameter; .370". So, no shit it has lower back pressure; it's a .30 can. You could screw their 7.62 endcap in the 5.56 Razor and shoot .30 through it. Now, this is assuming all the baffles are the same, of course; I could only access the final baffle.

My thread title made me think a bit. I haven't shot the can; it's probably a good silencer; not a lame one. My beef with it, and Rugged, and a lot of other companies in the firearms industry, is the overly-hyped, borderline dishonest marketing. What Rugged had to say about the Razor 5.56 is a heck of a lot more snazzy than "it's the Razor 7.62 with one less baffle and a 5.56 endcap".

I have a Razor 7.62 in jail. Its going to be used on my Sig 553'3 in 300 and 556. I have shot it whilst it is in jail. Looking forward to getting it home to compare with all of my AR15 cans so I can compare the low back pressure claims. The sigs are already great shooters when suppressed so its hard to know the difference in back pressure claims. When mine gets out of jail I will compare with a couple of my 556 cans. The Razor has been in jail 365 days... Fuck you ATF!

Rugged most likely received feedback regarding the dedicated 5.56 hole in their lineup, despite them believing the Razor 7.62 is supposed to be for both 5.56 and 7.62. To boot, by your observations, they were able to change very little from their current Razor 7.62 in the 5.56's creation.

My guess is you gain very little, maybe 1-3 db reduction*, on the dedicated 5.56 cans vs 7.62, when shooting 5.56. The real benefit, which in the case of the Razor 5.56 v 7.62 is minimal, is weight, as 5.56 cans don't necessarily need to be as robust and CAN be lighter without resorting to less durable and more costly Ti.

Sure, if you are putting together a build w/extremely specific requirements with regard to weight, sound reduction, length, etc, the dedicated 5.56 cans can make sense, hence the aforementioned feedback. However, I think the versatility of the 7.62 cans, especially the models which can change endcaps make more practical sense for an individual that doesn't have a huge budget for specialized cans.

(All of the above comments were for full size cans, not Kurz style)

*while decibels are logarithmic, when you drop 35+ decibels, 1-3 is not going to matter as much, depending on the location of shooting. But a suppressor is still better than none.

while I personally use surefire on tactical rifles and have caliber specific 5.56 and 7.62 cans almost every bit of data I have seen is that 5.56 through a 7.62 surefire can has only the slightest amount of reduced suppression. If I did it all over I might just choose the 7.62 option and use it on lots of stuff versus what I do now.

I wasn't so much concerned about the Razor 5.56 underperforming, due to it's design; I am sure it's good. I'd just like to see better efforts made in honest and thorough marketing. I think I speak for everyone when I say that I'd prefer to read something like "In conducting testing, we determined that our existing Razor baffle design performed as good or better than any dedicated 5.56 aperture baffle so we opted to utilize them in our 5.56 Razor. 5.56-specific tweaks are the removal of one baffle for (insert scientific or weight-related reasons) and a reduced aperture endcap for (more reasons)."