quote:

you might also look at the LaRue Tranquillo

Funny you mention that. Next month will mark one year since I ordered a SUURG kit from them. I'll be pumped when they tell me that thing is on the way.

I put a down payment on a B&T RBS at my dealer yesterday. They're not there for him to get yet, but I gave him enough money that he'll act swiftly when they are.

Hang in there. My Tranquillo took about 13 months to be delivered to my FFL/SOT. And then, incredibly, that ATF processed my paper Form 4 in about 4 months.

I spoke with Larue about it in February, and they said there's another guy who's been waiting since 2020. I guess the SUURG has that much longer of a lead time, because it's more than just the silencer. I will continue to be patient. Have you had an opportunity to compare the Tranquillo to other low pressure silencers?

I finally got my OSS 762-QD (stainless) out to shoot next to my DA PBS-1. While I didn't put a whole lot of rounds through either, the PBS-1 had more backpressure, no surprise, but they sounded pretty much the same (which is far better than sans suppressor).

I am glad I have both as I intend to use the PBS-1 on my Arsenal SLR107 and the OSS on my PTR-91, Aero M5, SCAR, and other gas sensitive platforms. Unfortunately, the Arsenal is NOT concentric, so I will not mount the OSS again.

I just wish I had purchased the OSS in titanium, as the stainless is a pig.

I have a DA Sandman-S on the way, which will be more of a general purpose 762 suppressor where gas is not as much an issue.

I don't find the OSS cans to be heavy enough to warrant complaint. IMO, their titanium offering didn't shave enough weight, to merit the extra cost. This is coming from someone who has more time behind an older Gemtech Halo than anything else though, so my ideas about what a can ought to weigh are pretty forgiving.

https://www.thefirearmblog.com...essors-karl-brugger/

In this interview, Mr. Brugger mentions that military units that purchase RBS cans use them for training. If going "into harm's way" they opt for the normal (presumably Rotex) silencers, as the better noise and flash reduction is prioritized over reduced gas/filth. Interesting real-world insight into the reduced back pressure trend.

I have an SLH762 TI direct thread in jail that may be out before the first of the year with a little luck. The primary host will be a Rattler Canebrake in 300 BLK. I chose the SLH as it is supposed to be more focussed on sound suppression but still have lower back pressure. Sound suppression was more my goal and also that it is rated for Supersonic rounds up to 300 Mag. I was hoping to get the longer 300BLK version but none were in stock anywhere. My other use will be on 5.56 carbines. Not sure it will be useable on a 7" 5.56 but I think not. Will report back after the can is released on good behavior.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
Dwill, I understand it is a direct-thread mount. The threads that interface with the muzzle threads are down in that pocket, and there is a split collar that is tightened on the barrel behind the muzzle threads, using a cross-bolt. It seemed to me that what they are referring to as the blast baffle may actually be the "seat" for the muzzle of the barrel, inside the muzzle thread pocket. It appeared very shallow, when compared to other blast baffle depths I have seen. Typically the initial chamber is oversized, compared to the remainder of the expansion chambers. This can is of course of an unconventional design, so anything's possible. It seems to me that the blast baffle is at the weld that is clearly visible in the image of the huge flash, which would pout it much deeper, unless it has an aggressive conical shape.

“Blast Baffle”

I don’t think that word means what you think it means.

The blast baffle is always the first baffle in the stack closest to the rear of the can, hence the name, because it absorbs the initial blast from the muzzle.

I was suggesting that their picture caption was incorrect. My interpretation of the photo in question was based my perception of the photo's depth, which I did concede can be misleading. I also based my guess on how a muzzle device attaches to that particular weapon; if the can is at all the same, there would be a "seat" inside the silencer. Based on my perception of the picture, I thought what they referred to as the blast baffle may have actually been this "seat". The seat would not be subject to blast, and would not be the blast baffle. It was all an exercise in photo interpretation, and ultimately trivial. Did you look at the source material and preceding conversation? If I didn't know what a blast baffle was, and how it worked, believe me, I would not be participating in the suppressed forum like I do.

This is a timely thread bump though, as everyone and their uncle seems to be showing reduced pressure silencers at SHOT show. I suppose it only makes sense, as the way to move forward, but I have been having very good results with rifle tuning methods and conventional cans lately.

I picked up a HUXWRX Flow 556k a couple months ago based on the positive reviews, data from Pew Science, and the FBI contract for that can.

...it works...well.

I'm shooting it on a BCM 11.5" SBR with an H3 buffer and "normal" BCG, gas block, and buffer spring. I do not know the gas port dimension on the gun, however it was not overly gassy with the previous can (M4-2000).

For comparison purposes, in addition to the M4-2000, I've got a YHM Turbo and a couple Turbo Ks. I've shot the Sandman K some. I've been on the line with about everything else at some point.

The Flow 556k delivers. It is as short and light as the Turbo K. It sounds better than every other 5.56 can that I have been around. I'm sure there are others that sound better, but the Flow 556k is very pleasant. When I say that the gun was "not overly gassy" with the old can, that is to say that other than extended rapid strings, it was fine. With the Flow 556k it is not gassy at all. It really is shocking. The gun also stays a hell of a lot cleaner inside. It's not as clean as an unsuppressed gun, but it's manageable.

The downside? You can get about three Turbo Ks for the price of one Flow 556k (not counting stamps). It's hard to see the cost/benefit analysis making sense for most users. If you can swing it, the benefits are obvious, but if it's financially straining to justify, you might be happier with a Turbo K and adjustable BCG or something.

That is a very fair and objective assessment, BigBR.

I find it interesting that so many of the low pressure or "flow through" silencers announced at SHOW shot are flaunting the "operator health" aspect. The appeal to me was always the reduction in gas in the face, because it's potentially a factor that may require the shooter to disengage. Also, the broader and simpler applications achieved with low pressure designs, when it comes to the host weapon not needing nearly as much modification or adjustment; they can make a previously unsuppressable weapon a viable option. Obviously the health factor is real, but it seems like a weird thing to choose as the primary selling point.