Airlock Zero Gravity Nano (.224)

[Huntnpack 2]

.

 

[gut_pile]

Got a pre order on the way! Have a tikka 223 with 16” bbl. Can’t wait

 

[Juan_ID]

No scientific testing but to 2 sets of ears on the range today the nano seemed to have less “crack” than the Hyperion and Scythe on a 16.5” 223, thus sounding more pleasant.

 

[Kaleb]

Dang! Maybe next time I'll be faster to get one! Thanks for the report.

 

[Juan_ID]

@AirlockIndustries with how small and light this thing is are there any plans to do a nano+ or something like that?

 

[omicron1792]

No scientific testing but to 2 sets of ears on the range today the nano seemed to have less “crack” than the Hyperion and Scythe on a 16.5” 223, thus sounding more pleasant.
View attachment 1026260

I mean this is mind blowing. 3d printing changed the game for the good.

 

[mt100gr.]

I'm pretty excited for my Nano on a 22 creedmoor, but i almost cant wait to use it on the 223.

 

[huntinfool84]

I went out with @Juan_ID today and shot those 3 against each other. Hands down the nano was the easiest on the ears!

@AirlockIndustries A Nano+ would be insane, like a ZG 6.5 with a 22 cal bore!!! I’ll be the first inline for one of those!!

If you missed out on the last drop like I did because I was skeptical of the hype, it’s the real deal and I won’t miss out on the next drop!

Mirage hits the Scythe on shot 2, you cannot shoot after shot 3.
Juan shot 5 shots pretty much back to back with mirage just starting to show up on the 5th shot with the Nano.

 

[ChrisAU]

Can the nano gain volume through girth and be more effective vs length? I know the jokes are writing themselves lol, but if we went from say 3.75 oz to 4.5 oz by gaining 1/4-1/2” of girth I think that’d be worth it, if sound decreases a good bit?

She told me girth is all that mattered, etc etc

 

[Huntnpack 2]

Nano + would be optimizing a 22 can in the right direction.

 

[Juan_ID]

I'm pretty excited for my Nano on a 22 creedmoor, but i almost cant wait to use it on the 223.

I was telling @huntinfool84 I could do without a lot of things shooting wise, a suppressed 223 isn’t one of those things, they’re just too fun to shoot. A shorty 223 with a nano+ would be .

I also shot it on my 16.5” 22GT, it did well there too tho I didn’t shoot as many rounds through that yet. I plan to get it back out next weekend. I bought the nano to live on the GT as a dedicated hunting suppressor.

 

[mt100gr.]

I was telling @huntinfool84 I could do without a lot of things shooting wise, a suppressed 223 isn’t one of those things, they’re just too fun to shoot. A shorty 223 with a nano+ would be .

I also shot it on my 16.5” 22GT, it did well there too tho I didn’t shoot as many rounds through that yet. I plan to get it back out next weekend. I bought the nano to live on the GT as a dedicated hunting suppressor.

I have a AB 10stack (30 cal) that I have been using on a handful of rifles. Flush mounted on the 20" 223 it is REALLY quiet. My daughters love shooting that rifle and the AB has won them over compared to my other suppressors. If the Nano is what it appears to be, it'll be that much more (but less) of a good thing!

 

[Q_Sertorius]

Can the nano gain volume through girth and be more effective vs length? I know the jokes are writing themselves lol, but if we went from say 3.75 oz to 4.5 oz by gaining 1/4-1/2” of girth I think that’d be worth it, if sound decreases a good bit?

She told me girth is all that mattered, etc etc

Increasing girth on a suppressor too much starts to interfere with the view through the scope.

 

[ChrisAU]

Increasing girth on a suppressor too much starts to interfere with the view through the scope.

Eh in this conversation I’m not worried about about my scope having too much FOV that it becomes a concern. The nano is 1.25” OD which is pretty small as suppressors go. I’ve gone two years with a 6.75” long by 1.625” OD DD Wolf Hunter on my 16.5” 22CM and it has been zero concern with a 2.5-15 Maven. The Nano is already 2” shorter, and would gain massive volume by just going to the same OD as the Wolf Hunter and it would still end 2” shorter.

Let’s look at simple cylindrical volume:

Nano: 6.69ci

Nano XL+ (1.675 OD): 10.3ci

That doesn’t account for the baffles, threads etc but you get the idea. Volume wise youre getting over 50% more for no increase in length and just meeting OD of standard suppressors we’ve all been using.

 

[mt100gr.]

Eh in this conversation I’m not worried about about my scope having too much FOV that it becomes a concern. The nano is 1.25” OD which is pretty small as suppressors go. I’ve gone two years with a 6.75” long by 1.625” OD DD Wolf Hunter on my 16.5” 22CM and it has been zero concern with a 2.5-15 Maven. The Nano is already 2” shorter, and would gain massive volume by just going to the same OD as the Wolf Hunter and it would still end 2” shorter.

Let’s look at simple cylindrical volume:

Nano: 6.69ci

Nano XL+ (1.675 OD): 10.3ci

That doesn’t account for the baffles, threads etc but you get the idea. Volume wise youre getting over 50% more for no increase in length and just meeting OD of standard suppressors we’ve all been using.

Stop it! I can't afford Danny as it is....

 

[ACHILLES]

Can the nano gain volume through girth and be more effective vs length? I know the jokes are writing themselves lol, but if we went from say 3.75 oz to 4.5 oz by gaining 1/4-1/2” of girth I think that’d be worth it, if sound decreases a good bit?

She told me girth is all that mattered, etc etc

I’ve always wondered why there aren’t suppressors with a 2-2.2” OD aside from 50cal. My 1.8” OD can with a 1-8x24 lpvo in low rings has no issues on a bolt rifle. At 1x you can start to see the can in the picture but it doesn’t hinder shooting in any way. So a little bigger diameter can shouldn’t be a problem on a hunting rifle in med or high rings.