New Surefire suppressors...tested by yours truly.

[kalima275Z]

Now that the cat's already out of the bag....

I got a chance to shoot the new 5.56 Surefire cans and compare them against existing SF cans and an Ops Inc can. A friend of mine/past co-worker is now a Dir. at SF. We finally got a chance to link up at the end of August.

By far, hands down, SF cans crush the competition in accuracy, repeatability, and now size and weight (as you can see below in the pics). dB difference was negligible and recoil was as well (between each other, better than the Ops Inc though). We shot 62gr Lake City, 77gr Sierra Match and 75gr Hornady.

I got tons of video too.

Here's the buzzkill (for me, not for you). I can't get one of these until I move next Spring...fearing that if I submit my forms now, my state residency may change before the doc's get back. So, here I am, having had a taste of the awesomeness but won't be able to own one until everyone and their mom has one.

Pic 1: You can see the Ops Inc on the left, huge and heavy!!!! From L to R are the FA, 212, the Mini and then the Micro. Both the Mini and the Micro are the new ones. They are so light.



Pic 2: Self-explanatory. Ops Inc vs the Mini.



Pic 3: The gats. Can't blame inaccuracy on the pea-shooters. Larue, LMT, LWRC, Colt, Noveske, Daniel Defense etc. etc.



Pic 4: The 4 groups above center are all the Ops Inc groups. You can see that it had a really tiny group, smallest of all actually. Yet, each group was fired after taking the can off and putting it back on. The groups are good but the shifts are VERY inconsistent. We're not talking about 4 different cans. It's the same can, just taken off and put back on....wack.

The groups that are near the center are from going back and forth between the 212, the Micro and the Mini. Back and forth, on and off on the same upper. This pic is all 62gr. We got identical results with the 75gr and 77gr.

[jumpin800agl]

looks like fun.

[Hraesvelg]

100 yards?
What scopes did you use?

Nice write up.

[kalima275Z]

50 yards.

NF, S&B, C-More, Leupold and Aimpoint.

Thanks

[tig488]

ever use the yankee hill suppressor?

[Poison123]

"SF cans crush the competition in accuracy, repeatability," I know several people who would disagree including myself. AAC is still better in my opinion.

A real review would also offer the dB level. Sorry bud.

[kalima275Z]

I like AAC suppressors, they're not bad. However, I would only take a free one and only use it at the range stateside on steel and paper. I wouldn't trust it down range against dudes.

I do have a problem with the way AAC goes about business though. The pic below shows an AAC M42000 (can #12) and a Gemtech M496D (can #6), both intro'd in 2001. Notice how similar the designs are?

Can #11 is a Gemtech M496C from 1996. In other words, not only do they copy other companies baffle designs, they continue to use these old designs. I could write off the copying if AAC knew everything about their competitors products and the background development of such. They don't though and they just short-cutted without knowing the details behind certain aspects of Gemtech's design. More can be said about this but it would do nothing but add gas to the fire.



This is a good article about the drama between the two companies. Notice the pic in AAC's ad then take a look at the pic below. The pic below, with the entire can shown highlights another example of AAC's innovation (sarcasm). AAC is a good company because they do the best knock-offs.



Also, have you seen the AAC cans that have been shipped with SCARs? Many of them have ID and OD parallel problems, many of which are completely obvious to the naked eye. AAC said that it's fine because their design can have a non-centered bore hole and still be accurate.
However, all of my opinions aside, when it comes to guns, I always say, "don't take my word for it, shoot it yourself".

[Poison123]

By that same thing you could say number 9 is also of a similar baffle design. Only so many ways you can skin a cat.

Yes I've heard about the problems with the SCAR....I've also heard they were required to gimp them for some reason by drilling a small hole near the base.

I'm just saying, Surefire is far from the best. Hell they are the most overpriced for sure(with the exception of $1800++ .308 abortion that Wilson Combat tried to pawn off on people).

[kalima275Z]

No worries man. Of all the reasons for me to rely on Surefire, the one that tops them all is that they contract a neutral party to test their cans. No other company does this. So, I trust that and my own personal experience.

Originally Posted by Poison123

I'm just saying, Surefire is far from the best.

Who's the best and who's between them and Surefire?

[Poison123]

I think its based on the can in question. AAC is the down right winner in the .45/9mm market with their new TiRant offerings. Nothing comes close to those at the moment.

I can't remember the name, but some of the smaller time companies have good .308 cans. The AAC 762SD I tested on my DTA SRS had no POI shift, and was awesome hearing wise.

[tig488]

this one?

http://yankeehillmachine.com/store/SSphantom556.html

[MagicPie]

I fail to see the point of the design. I understand it's to reduce the overall length when running 16" barrels. However you have AAC and even Surefire already making reflex suppressors, that will only add 4.5" but have a overall can length of 7.5".

No matter the design, volume space is everything, and there is no way, these cans could match the reduction of Ops Inc, AAC or Surefire current offerings.

If you want to snipe suppressed, reducing overall lenght is not a big deal. If overall length is a big deal, then you're better off with a SBR, and reflex suppressor, giving still a bit less overall length of that of a 16" barrel. While remaining with a full size suppressor, and too one that is of over-the-barrel design, to which are all superior to any others.

I wait until Silencerresearch.com test these out before I would ever consider. Looks like Surefire removed all the expansion chambers, and just went straight up baffles, as the baffles in reflex suppressors are only 4" or so, but of course that have 3.5"+ of expansion room.

[GZire]

I hate all you bastages that can (legally) shoot and own these cans.

[kalima275Z]

Originally Posted by MagicPie

I fail to see the point of the design. I understand it's to reduce the overall length when running 16" barrels. However you have AAC and even Surefire already making reflex suppressors, that will only add 4.5" but have a overall can length of 7.5".

No matter the design, volume space is everything, and there is no way, these cans could match the reduction of Ops Inc, AAC or Surefire current offerings.

Reduction of what?

Originally Posted by MagicPie

If you want to snipe suppressed, reducing overall lenght is not a big deal. If overall length is a big deal, then you're better off with a SBR, and reflex suppressor, giving still a bit less overall length of that of a 16" barrel. While remaining with a full size suppressor, and too one that is of over-the-barrel design, to which are all superior to any others.

I wait until Silencerresearch.com test these out before I would ever consider. Looks like Surefire removed all the expansion chambers, and just went straight up baffles, as the baffles in reflex suppressors are only 4" or so, but of course that have 3.5"+ of expansion room.

No offense, but let's square up so we both understand where each of us are coming from. Are you required to engage targets that shoot back at you?

[MagicPie]

sound reduction obviously, while baffles certainly play a big role, no matter what you need volume to contain and latter cool the hot, expansion gases. I'm fully aware you can not reduce the report the round makes breaking the sound barrier, but the blast, especially in short barrel guns require a great deal of volume, and hence the reflex suppressor.

How does my engagement of real targets change anything? If you're implying some operator may want a 14.5 or 16" barrel for ballistics but concern about overall length-again, the reflex suppressor.
If you want low weight, or have something that prevents the reflex from mounting back over the barrel a few inches, I can understand to some degree, since in such cases the suppressor is really intended to allow communication and prevent hearing loss. Although as mention will likely be far less effective then current suppressors.

I'm only stating I'm sceptically to their supposed greatness, and will wait for professional more elaborated review, to be proving wrong or right.

[kalima275Z]

Originally Posted by MagicPie

sound reduction obviously, while baffles certainly play a big role, no matter what you need volume to contain and latter cool the hot, expansion gases. I'm fully aware you can not reduce the report the round makes breaking the sound barrier, but the blast, especially in short barrel guns require a great deal of volume, and hence the reflex suppressor.

How does my engagement of real targets change anything? If you're implying some operator may want a 14.5 or 16" barrel for ballistics but concern about overall length-again, the reflex suppressor.
If you want low weight, or have something that prevents the reflex from mounting back over the barrel a few inches, I can understand to some degree, since in such cases the suppressor is really intended to allow communication and prevent hearing loss. Although as mention will likely be far less effective then current suppressors.

I'm only stating I'm sceptically to their supposed greatness, and will wait for professional more elaborated review, to be proving wrong or right.

It shows what characteristics you prioritize in a suppressor. Furthermore, myself and no one I work with has ever needed a can to prevent hearing loss. The reason why these cans apply to the real-world is because they reduce overall length of our weapons while suppressing flash and reducing recoil for our non-precision fires systems. We have different requirements for cans on our long guns.

For the most part though, I understand why range warriors want cans and your post validates my thoughts on this. Most firearms collectors want suppressors because it's cool to have a gun that's quite.

Flash suppression is not so important at the range.

[Mike Wazowski]

I know you want to share......

[MagicPie]

Originally Posted by kalima275Z

It shows what characteristics you prioritize in a suppressor. Furthermore, myself and no one I work with has ever needed a can to prevent hearing loss. The reason why these cans apply to the real-world is because they reduce overall length of our weapons while suppressing flash and reducing recoil for our non-precision fires systems. We have different requirements for cans on our long guns.

For the most part though, I understand why range warriors want cans and your post validates my thoughts on this. Most firearms collectors want suppressors because it's cool to have a gun that's quite.

Flash suppression is not so important at the range.

Spare me, the me-the high tech triple black spec ops vs range warrior BS. I know vaules of a solider are much different then that of some guy at the range. Indeed suppressors for civilians are $hits and giggles, and for soldiers as much as life or death, but it doesn't change my core statement.
I'm fully aware soldiers want absolute flash kill, but any cheap can, with pressed washers for baffles will kill a flash. Any decent professional made suppressor will too add a bit of precision, along with the fact that mask the shooting location for snipers-but then I'm not aware of these guy worrying about a few inches added to the gun.

Surefire, and even your review speaks of them as sound suppressors. To which in war-time, beside the important flash kill, is to reduce hearing problems associated with firefights. Maybe you're not interested in this, maybe no solider is, but this is one of the main reasons the military is issuing suppressors is for this very thing. Highly effective flash suppressors-at least all I have used, are extremely loud.
And if I recall correctly, it was the complaints that the A2 bird cage on a 14.5" barrel was too loud for soldiers to maintain hearing in a firefight, and thus why the military started issuing suppressor to some groups.

All I said, is that I unsure how these can can out preform current offerings. You state they out preform a Ops Inc, and I've presented a doubt. Dont make a big deal out of this.

I'm also not flaming Surefire, I have a FA556AR pending a tax stamp. And yes, so I can be tacticool. But whatever the case, I'm not going to spend $1000+ for a small can, where I can get a superior reflex can and not add much more in total length. Now if Surefire new cans are both small and very effective, then I eat my words-no big deal.

[kalima275Z]

Originally Posted by MagicPie

Spare me, the me-the high tech triple black spec ops vs range warrior BS. I know vaules of a solider are much different then that of some guy at the range. Indeed suppressors for civilians are $hits and giggles, and for soldiers as much as life or death, but it doesn't change my core statement.

It shouldn't, but it should make you understand that your take on this is based off a requirement that isn't applicable to why these suppressors were designed this way.

Originally Posted by MagicPie

I'm fully aware soldiers want absolute flash kill, but any cheap can, with pressed washers for baffles will kill a flash.

You're correct, any cheap can will kill flash. Yet, so will a lot of things. What will a cheap can do for sound suppression? How repeatable will it be? How reliable? How many rounds can I shoot through it and still depend on it?

Originally Posted by MagicPie

Any decent professional made suppressor will too add a bit of precision, along with the fact that mask the shooting location for snipers-but then I'm not aware of these guy worrying about a few inches added to the gun.

You're rolling the requirements of a sniper's can into the same category as these cans. You missed my post a bit ago apparently.

Originally Posted by MagicPie

Surefire, and even your review speaks of them as sound suppressors. To which in war-time, beside the important flash kill, is to reduce hearing problems associated with firefights. Maybe you're not interested in this, maybe no solider is, but this is one of the main reasons the military is issuing suppressors is for this very thing. Highly effective flash suppressors-at least all I have used, are extremely loud.

They do suppress sound. On average, the Micro and the Mini are 2-3 dB's louder than the 212. The bolded statement...how do you know this? I think you pulled this out of thin air.

Originally Posted by MagicPie

And if I recall correctly, it was the complaints that the A2 bird cage on a 14.5" barrel was too loud for soldiers to maintain hearing in a firefight, and thus why the military started issuing suppressor to some groups.

Dude...the A2 bird cage? Do you realize that there have been about 20 other flash suppressing compensators to come along since that? Not to mention that everyone, with every open flash suppressing compensator, would complain about how loud they shoot. You're spouting some weird claims (see the bold portion again).

Originally Posted by MagicPie

All I said, is that I unsure how these can can out preform current offerings. You state they out preform a Ops Inc, and I've presented a doubt. Dont make a big deal out of this.

You must not have seen the caption of the pic in my first post on this thread. The target had 4 different groups from the same can (Ops Inc). I'm really not sure if you understand this, but for future reference...that is not good.

Originally Posted by MagicPie

I'm also not flaming Surefire, I have a FA556AR pending a tax stamp. And yes, so I can be tacticool. But whatever the case, I'm not going to spend $1000+ for a small can, where I can get a superior reflex can and not add much more in total length. Now if Surefire new cans are both small and very effective, then I eat my words-no big deal.

Here's where the root of most of the problems that people have with Surefire...the price. Civilians pay for them and you guys will sacrifice certain characteristics of a can and write them off to justify paying for the cheaper product. Which is totally cool. Do that.

[Poison123]

What characteristics are sacrificed on the AAC M4-2k again? And yes AAC has some of the mini cans coming out soon.