Got the Warden replacement. Same shit. They obviously don't hold the Warden to the same standard as their silencers. Pretty lame, if you ask me. Whatever. Between the Mini having a better gas seal than the RC2, and the Warden having looser mount tolerances, I am definitely annoyed by an apparent inconsistency in the SF muzzle attachment line of products.

I did call Surefire customer service, and the guy I spoke to more-or-less confirmed that the Warden is not held to the same standard as the silencers. That being said, it seems like maybe that hasn't always been the case, as people have supposedly made HUB mounts out of things like Wardens, BFAs, and trainers. I have seen a discussion online in which a Gemtech employee shared that their mock cans are not really even close, when it comes to materials and tolerances, to their actual silencers, where the mount interface is concerned.

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

I tried the Warden on a 7.62 3-prong. No wobble, and concentricity is good when tightened. Makes sense, based on this reply from one of the "higher-ups" (Project Manager, suppressors and weapons) at Surefire...


Thanks for reaching out for assistance with your WARDEN blast deflector. My apologies for the delayed response, I am just catching up on emails now. To address the concentricity issue with the WARDEN, we do not put these devices through the same straightening processes that we use on the suppressors because the bore is larger than needed and because the overall length is much shorter than a suppressor. The shorter length usually helps with minimizing concentricity issues because it is not exacerbated over a long distance. In our testing this slight misalignment has not caused any issues in performance.


To address the wobble you are experiencing with the WRADEN on the host muzzle device, this is something I have not experienced before. Would you be able to tell me which model muzzle device you are using when the WARDEN is wobbling? I ask because the WRADEN’s are made to be multi-caliber, which means the back sections where they interface with the muzzle devices are machined to the 7.62mm muzzle device size, which is slightly larger than that of the 5.56mm muzzle devices. Because of this, the WARDEN may wobble a tiny bit more on 5.56mm muzzle devices when compared to 7.62 muzzle devices. If this is the situation you are experiencing, we have not seen this cause a performance issue in our testing.


I hope this information helps. Please let me know if I can assist further.


So, I don't know how dudes are making HUB adapters out of Wardens, for use on .223 muzzle devices.

You know, I’m curious enough that I’m actually going to relate this stuff to Ecco Machine and ask. Probably won’t be today, but soon. Since there’s cutting and machining involved anyway, it may be that they already know of this stuff and true up the mounting surfaces somehow, either by building them up with a weld and re-milling them, or just replacing that section altogether.

There's also the matter of potentially different (inferior) materials and tolerances used in manufacturing non-silencer things like blast diverters. It is speculative, of course, outside the boundaries of the previously noted confirmation from Gemtech. I do know that the locking collar on the warden doesn't look the same as the ones on the SF silencers.

I am suddenly considering an Ecco HUB conversion of my SDN-6 though.

A thought just now:

If a Surefire can was to become stuck, but your collar still rotates, could you not only slightly rotate the collar, to where there's enough play for a shot to break the seizure, but the collar is still interfering enough with the muzzle device to prevent the can from leaving the muzzle?

I have yet to experience the SF silencer "carbon lock"; though I have experienced a collar fouled to the point of being very difficult to rotate. So, the above practice wouldn't have helped me in any circumstance, yet.

In using my two 5.56 Surefire silencers (RC2 and 556 mini), I have noted previously-mentioned fitment differences. The RC2 has a poor seal, and the locking collar becomes fouled; the mini has a great seal, but is prone to more difficult removal after the locking collar is easily unlocked.

I believe the mini is likely going to be prone the typical Surefire "carbon lock", as described elsewhere online. The RC2 has never stuck on the mount in this manner, but has fallen victim to a stubborn collar, and also leaks gas on my support hand and the front portion of my handguard and gas block.

I much prefer the mini's mount performance.

In recent comparisons between a RC2 and Otter Creek OCM5, I have absolutely seen the sound performance shortcoming that Surefire detractors mention.

In shooting a 12" mid-gas with the RC2 next to a 11.5" carbine-gas with the OCM5, the RC2 is loud. Not just a little louder, to where it doesn't really matter much, but a lot louder. So much louder that you're inclined to say that the Surefire is a poor silencer.

Now, this is in comparison to a can that has a reputation for being very quiet, and isn't without it's own unique baggage. So, I am certainly not letting this experience fundamentally change my opinion of SF cans.

I have been chasing flash performance; these two cans are neck-and-neck in that performance aspect. The sound performance of the OCM5 definitely makes up for it's mount idiosyncrasies, especially considering my inconsistent experience with the SF mount interface.

One thing I will say is that the RC2 has better backpressure performance (which may be due in part to the poor rear seal). Considering that, in conjunction with the unique OCM5 mount considerations, it may be a wash. It's not certain though; the sound difference is that extreme.

Interesting results, but not that surprising to me. I wouldn't say that's an apples to apples comparison purely for the reason that the OCM5/AEM5/OPS Inc. 12th model design is a reflex can, and has an absolutely massive expansion chamber compared to the RC2. That the RC2 tames flash as well as the OCM5 says a lot for it, but I'd be surprised if you could find a suppressor that isn't a reflex suppressor that sounds anything like as quiet as your OCM5. That's old tech, and the industry is moving more towards the whole flow-through "we don't want our customers inhaling sweet cancer with every shot" type end of things. It'll be interesting to see who figures out what tricks for the best flash reduction. Andrew at Otter Creek teased his design for a flow-through can on Instagram a couple weeks back and it's intriguing. There's a number of end baffles you can select from to dial in what performance you like, from wide open to nearly choked off in the traditional way, and everything in between.

My friend has been extolling the virtues of the AEM5 to me for going on a decade now. He only has the one, and several rifles with the muzzle device, so it makes the rounds. He also has some unexplained hatred for Otter Creek and will explain it no further than "Andrew is a dick." Something to do with the mount Otter Creek offers being touted as an improvement over the Allen Eng. but not really. I don't really know what the deal is there, but the OCM5 is pretty tempting for a number of different configurations, it's just a hassle with the brake and getting enough clearance between the muzzle and the handguard. I'm actually thinking about what to use to suppress my ultralight carbine I've been piecing together, and while the OCM5 isn't light, the sound reduction performance is really hard to argue with. Reflex cans also sound good. Exactly nowhere in the running for that role is a Surefire RC2.

I'm surprised by this. Very different or extreme for the human ear is like 6dba or more. And when you look at Pew there are no cans in the huge list they have tested on short barrel MK18 that are that much quieter than the RC2. Is there a Pew on the OCM5? I didn't see one? As you know I don't follow very well these odd ball mfg. Is there a real test showing the two somewhere I couldn't find one?

quote:

Originally posted by hrcjon:
Is there a Pew on the OCM5? I didn't see one?

https://www.reddit.com/r/NFA/s/tJs3e1I8Be

quote:

Originally posted by hrcjon:
As you know I don't follow very well these odd ball mfg. Is there a real test showing the two somewhere I couldn't find one?

Maybe, but like I said earlier, and like Andrew, the owner of Otter Creek Labs says here (user Ottergang), they’re two very different suppressors.

Otter Creek isn’t what I’d call an oddball manufacturer, unless we’re saying that’s everyone who isn’t Surefire.

They came to prominence with the OCM5, which is a lighter and more economical version of the Ops 12th model. The AEM5 is also that, but the OCM5 is 6oz lighter, lower backpressure, and supposedly quieter. There was also a nine month back order on AEM5’s when Otter Creek started producing the OCM5 a few years ago, so they were able to fill a void in the Mk12 and “Gordon carbine” cloning community. So, that’s why they probably never popped up on your radar.

P220Smudge I waded through like 200 posts on that reddit and I don't see any actual test data. I'm not a reddit addict like you is there something I missed?

“Reddit addict” is a little strong. I linked directly to it. Director of Pew Science says “stay tuned for OCM5” 141 days ago.

Wasn't meant negatively for sure. So when KSGM says recent comparisons where might those be? Do either of you know.

The recent comparisons were in the woods where I live.

quote:

Otter Creek OCM5

Is this just me. I have never seen it so hard to find someone who put an actual sound meter on a can and published it? Like the people who built it? Surely the mfg. publishes something? I can't find it? I get you can have lots of variables in that testing like the meter type and location and etc. etc. But surely there is a set of numbers somewhere one could reference? Who on earth would buy something without at least some basic data about its sound performance?

I bought the OCM5 based solely on the reputation of the AEM5. Everyone who has shot an AEM5 or OCM5 (whose opinions I have read on the internet), and has had experience with other silencers, says these silencers are the quietest they've shot. The catch is the fact that they're most often attached to a longer-barrel MK12 Mod Something, which obviously gives a different impression than the likely-shorter rifles people have used with other silencers.

The AEM5 is included in the recent TBAC sound summit comparisons, but it's on a different host than the other cans. It's numbers were influenced by a longer barrel. According to their testing, the MIL location did quite well, and the ear location was about average. The MIL location was indeed 6dB better than the Surefire. Not an apples-to-apples comparison though. My comparison is more "fair", and is outlined in other posts in suppressed weapons threads, and the night vision thread in the Rifle Room.

I have used the OCM5 on two builds; both shorter than is typical. The first was plagued with quite poor performance, apparently due to the selection of the incorrect muzzle device (a phenomenon us SF users are familiar with). By chance, I performed some flash observation during that build's short lifespan; the performance of the OCM5 was great. A somewhat recent flash observation of two different SF cans prompted me to revisit the OCM5, in the interest of less flash, and potentially better suppression, with the correct brake muzzle device.

In my recent comparisons, I viewed the flash from maybe three meters forward, and five meters laterally offset, of the muzzle. As you said, there are many different variables influencing these impressions. Also, I have yet to be the shooter. My impressions have only been as an offset viewer/listener, in a modified MIL STD orientation.

The bottom line in all this is this is the first time I have been presented with a very identifiable difference in performance between two silencers, on similar hosts. In my experience to this point, one may notice slight differences in these comparative circumstances, but it's seldom enough to change anyone's mind about anything. It's usually a case of "Okay, now shoot the other one. Hmmm. Shoot that first one again. Yeah. I feel like the second is a bit louder, but maybe it's more a matter of tone.". The experience I had as the viewer of the RC2 vs OCM5 was an experience you'd expect to have if someone was comparing a standard-length can to it's "K" counterpart, on the same host.

And, admittedly, they probably are still that different. As noted in other threads, the OCM5 is a smidge lighter, and only differs in OAL weapon length by 3/8". The form factor in that regard is virtually a non-issue. The big differences lie in the host weapon dimensional requirements and mount functionality; backpressure was a noted difference as well.

I intend to do one more side-by-side comparison shoot; this time with 73gr FTX Critical Defense; still in the interest of flash assessment, but also keeping an ear on the report. I'll also get behind the guns, as the shooter.

I was ready for work with a bit of time to spare this morning, so I ran out back with those two guns/cans and fired three through each. The difference was significant.

When I got back inside, I asked my wife if she had paid any attention to the sound of the shots. She asked me what I shot, and I told her three through each one. She said "Well, I only heard three, so..."

quote:

OCM5

I'm happy for anecdotal evidence about the performance. But I just want to ask isn't a bit odd that the mfg. doesn't give you any actual scientific sound data. For a product whose essential purpose is sound reduction? There also seems to be none that I can find on the internet. Its like a stealth suppressor. If you have to ask its not for you...

It caters to a specific market. I am sure they haven't invested in Pew Science testing because the overwhelming majority of the folks who are gong to buy this silencer are buying it for use within the boundaries of it's quite specific intended application, and are content that it does as well as the can it's copying, and is made with the permission of the man behind the AEM5. 95% of the folks who are buying the OCM5 are buying it no questions asked. It is different enough from the mainstream offerings that it isn't competing with them. That, combined with it's ties to the established reputation of the AEM5 and OpsINC, makes other comparative testing largely unnecessary.

The dimensional requirements of the can will preclude it from most folks' applications. My build is using an 11.5" barrel; the handguard is about 8.875"; the silencer is only about 1/2" shorter than the handguard. There's almost as much silencer as there is handguard. Most people wouldn't be OK with that, I'd guess. You can't grip as far out as many people may be used to, your flashlight needs a serious cantilever mount, in order to mitigate shadow/splash, and the aesthetics are quite wonky. Thanks to the OTB one-piece mount, the idiosyncrasies of barrel profiling and collar installation are mitigated.

I am not picking on Surefire specifically. It just happens to be what I was using on my gun for the last while, and is therefore what I am comparing to. Surefire cans have a reputation for being a smidge louder than most other choices; the OCM5 has a reputation for being quieter than most other choices. It's a sort of worst-case comparative circumstance for the Surefire.

As a coincidental trivia note, I'll say that I have seen it stated that the OpsINC/AEM5 is where Surefire took inspiration for the SOCOM baffle stack. I believe Otter Creek said that they revised the baffle design, for the OCM5.

So I finally got a 5/8x24 flash hider, to enable the use of my SOCOM762mini on the Sig 553R. The form factor is nice, but it ain't all that quiet, even with subsonic ammo. The subs, with the gas turned off, still have a noticeable muzzle report. I know a "k" or mini can is a compromise, but I thought I'd still get OK performance, considering it's a x39; not a .308.

In the case of the NGSW, and most other military procurement programs, we are quick to rag on the process, and discuss the poor decisions made. I don't see why it'd be any less likely that the SOCOM silencers were a poor decision as a result of a shitty process. The cans are arguably dated now, but I am not sure they were fantastic performers, even when they were first introduced. I understand they were built to satisfy requirements of the military, and performance in the sound reduction department could have been knowingly compromised, to enable performance in some other aspect.

Based on the experience I have, with the three that I own, I don't know that I'd ever recommend a Surefire silencer to someone. Especially considering the myriad other options in the current market.

I'd like the mount, if it wasn't for the one on my RC2 being especially leaky.

The first contract was awarded in 2011 (with an outlying purchase of 100 cans in 2003 by the USMC, apparently). In 2011, there were only so many options. I have shot with a M42000, but honestly can't recall it's performance. The M42000 would have been an option at the time, as would have the NT4, Gemtech HALO (and bi-lok), etc. I am sure there were others too. I suppose it may have come down to the mount. I'd say the SOCOM fast-attach is likely preferred to the other methods at the time. I wonder how competitors stacked up on sound and flash performance?

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