My SilencerCo Harvester Evo 300 exploded today

The brand loyalists have come out… How many other manufacturers out there are there who have had to recall suppressors and who have documented problems? A couple? On the other hand, there are plenty of other manufacturers who have a perfect safety record so far. Why take the chance if you have a choice?

Would you purchase a firearm from a company that had a 0.1% chance of the barrel bursting under normal use while following the restrictions in the manual? Or whose customer service tells you that the maximum ROF is 10 RPM and that it is listed in the manual, when it clearly isn’t?

If I had to carry a second suppressor because I was concerned that the first one was going to fail catastrophically, I would just buy a good suppressor.
Dude brand loyalists really? I have several different brands. While I don’t have the months worth of experience that you do with all your spreadsheets and other collected internet data I just have the cans. I’ve been using them for I don’t know 3-4 years now? Maybe more? I have them I use them and can share my experiences that way. You won’t see me bashing or pimping something I don’t have.

It’s funny by your own confessions you have very little experience about any of the topics you lock horns on. Maybe you enjoy the debate? I don’t know? I’m not here for any debates. If I’ve used it I don’t mind sharing. If I haven’t and I’m curious I like to read from those that have.
 
It’s just what SilencerCo cans do. I believe that is three different models that have failed like that?
Im not totally disagreeing with you but from an objective view: The Silencer Co can I have has about 8,000 rounds through it this year. Albeit all 5.56 with a bolt gun, shoot 10 let cool so on... the product does not impress me nor has it failed to date. But (especially the scythe, which seems to see a ton of failures) SiCo is the number 1 selling brand of suppressors as of 2024. They may or may not be experiencing more failures than other brands when comparing ratio of failures to products in use.
I can not find any published third party data comparing failure rates apples to apples across brands.
 
Dude brand loyalists really? I have several different brands. While I don’t have the months worth of experience that you do with all your spreadsheets and other collected internet data I just have the cans. I’ve been using them for I don’t know 3-4 years now? Maybe more? I have them I use them and can share my experiences that way. You won’t see me bashing or pimping something I don’t have.

It’s funny by your own confessions you have very little experience about any of the topics you lock horns on. Maybe you enjoy the debate? I don’t know? I’m not here for any debates. If I’ve used it I don’t mind sharing. If I haven’t and I’m curious I like to read from those that have.
Kaleb, I am sorry I replied to your post rather than generally to the thread. It seems to have brought out the worst in you.
 
This is the heart of the problem to me. People bringing up manufacturing issues, and I agree, nobody is going to make 100% reliable products without some duds.

The thing is, each time somebody brought up another company besides SiCo it was always in reference to a recall they issued. Well, where is the recall from SiCo? I can understand defending them if they issued a recall, or really just made a statement, but they haven’t done that….business as usual.
Exactly. This percentage of failure without fixing the root cause is utterly baffling (pun intended) to me people would think that is okay with an exploding gun component.

If it was X failures (better be a low number) and a diligent recall to address the root cause that is trustworthy.

How can you trust a company / model that continues to allow a percentage of failure and slandering the users with lies and no proof of abuse to hide their defect rate?
 
Exactly. This percentage of failure without fixing the root cause is utterly baffling (pun intended) to me people would think that is okay with an exploding gun component.

If it was X failures (better be a low number) and a diligent recall to address the root cause that is trustworthy.

How can you trust a company / model that continues to allow a percentage of failure and slandering the users with lies and no proof of abuse to hide their defect rate?
With silencer co manufacturing a product that can potentially have a deadly effect upon failure, even a 99.97% good product is a liability. That’s still 3 failures per 1000. At over 20k produced, that’s still 60 failures. There have been than many reported here on Rokslide.

It’s one thing to make a product that simply no longer works upon failure, another to have a product where failure can cause bodily injury or worse. Things with potential for injury start using factors of safety during design. Ie if it has to be this strong to work, double or triple the strength. I don’t think this happened in the scythe design. My guess on root cause is a combination of material thickness and material type. I think I read that there are two grades of Ti being used. Based on color, I think baffles are one grade and blast chamber is a different one. Due to where the failures seem to happen, I would guess the baffle material is not up to the task. Fix, new baffles of a different material?
 
Kaleb, I am sorry I replied to your post rather than generally to the thread. It seems to have brought out the worst in you.
You called me a fanboy because I said I’ve/we’ve used a product a lot without failure. I simply said that what I’ve posted has been based on using the product. I don’t bash or push something I don’t have experience with. I think I have more dead air products than SiCo but I don’t think my next purchase will be either of them.

If you consider bringing out the worst in me as me being blunt I apologize. I was replying to a post where I was called a fanboy for saying I’ve had no failures and many friends and family members have had no failures with a product.
 
Exactly. This percentage of failure without fixing the root cause is utterly baffling (pun intended) to me people would think that is okay with an exploding gun component.

If it was X failures (better be a low number) and a diligent recall to address the root cause that is trustworthy.

How can you trust a company / model that continues to allow a percentage of failure and slandering the users with lies and no proof of abuse to hide their defect rate?

You’re a bit confused on how the quality process works. You do NOT go straight to recall. They must have an ongoing root cause analysis, which sometimes takes time. Additionally, I’ve heard rumors of litigation. This complicates things because as SOON as lawyers get involved, the company essentially has to go silent.

I’m not sure that they’re handling the scythe issue correctly, but again they could be following legal protocol with active/pending litigation.

Also issuing a recall strategy without a completed root cause analysis is dangerous in itself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You’re a bit confused on how the quality process works. You do NOT go straight to recall. They must have an ongoing root cause analysis, which sometimes takes time. Additionally, I’ve heard rumors of litigation. This complicates things because as SOON as lawyers get involved, the company essentially has to go silent.

I’m not sure that they’re handling the scythe issue correctly, but again they could be following legal protocol with active/pending litigation.

Also issuing a recall strategy without a completed root cause analysis is dangerous in itself.

No I am actually not confused. Sythes didn't just start blowing up this month, they have been reported failures going a year back. Enough for a manufacturer to either know or BE CONCERNED about a product flaw. The proper action while they do the investigation into the root cause of numerous cans exploding would be to issue a stop use statement and assure the public the matter will be throughly reviewed and then follow through on that.

OR you could just slander your users and say they abused the product with zero proof of that claim....

I saw rumors of litigation also, considering how they are handling customer concerns about a can they KNOW has had dozens (that we know of) of failures and subsequently folks have been injured it would be no surprise if they are being litigated. They are denying there is a problem and haven't told folks to stop using it while they investigate, why wouldn't someone that got injured sue at that point?
 
Silencer Co has sold more than 20,000 Scythes. There are about 50 failures reported in the thread. If that percentage is acceptable to you, as it clearly is to Silencer Co, then carry on. You see a low failure rate. For me, I see a company with a relatively large market share that won't honestly address a potential problem because the risks of failure are outweighed by the benefits of selling more products.

By way of comparison, SIG Sauer sold over 3 million P320s. There are about 100 reported failures. SIG is fighting this hard. It has a ton to lose. If we want to go just off statistical odds, the SIG P320 is far less likely to fail than the Scythe Ti (of course, the likely severity of injury is arguably much greater for the SIG). I have used SIG Sauer pistols for 25 years without any issues. The P320 issues won't stop me from continuing to use my P226 and P365, but I wouldn't buy a P320. And I wouldn't attack anyone who felt differently about it.

Remington's recall on the 700 series potentially affected 7.5 million rifles and 1.3 million were actually recalled. There were about 2000 complaints. To their credit, Remington did actually issue a recall and suffered the consequences of poor management decisions.

Ford sold over 2.1 million Pintos between 1971 and 1977. 38 of them caught fire in rear end collisions. 24 people died and 27 were injured. "Internal company documents showed Ford was aware of the defect but decided to prioritize production over safety, believing it was cheaper to pay for injuries and deaths than to modify the design." Potentially the same situation here? Statistically, the Ford Pinto had a lower failure rate than the Scythe Ti (although no one has died from a Scythe Ti failure).

When I look at Silencer Co, I see a company that has a relatively large share of the market that continues to have the same kinds of failures that plagued it in the past. Welding titanium is hard. It can result in brittle weak spots. They recalled five models for precisely that problem just two years ago. Silencer Co knows it is a problem. The company continues to churn out tons of cans, sell them relatively cheaply (my LGS had a promotion on them for about $600 last month), while still making a decent profit, and drown out the competition. People look at the marketing materials and things that Silencer Co feeds industry shills and decide to purchase their products. See, e.g., https://www.gunsandammo.com/editorial/silencerco-scythe-ti-suppressor/485440

(By the way, doesn't this testing regimen sound really familiar? Is it actually a good way to test the strength of titanium cans? I don't know.)

I know other suppressor companies have had issues with titanium weld failures in the past - the TBAC 2021 recall is one noted example. But I also don't see continued failures of the same kind with TBAC. Whatever caused the weld failures in the past, it seems to have been addressed. They either have a better process, a better safety margin, or better QC to catch potential failures before they go out. Or maybe they will have issues again? I don't know.

When I see 20,000 Scythes being sold, I see a relatively large company that is swamping the market with a product that employs a technique that continues to fail. I see a market in which it is harder for an innovative startup to compete. I want to see companies competing to make more reliable products, not just more products.

And, when I see people who have not experienced any failures with their Silencer Co cans reporting their positive individual experiences, I replace "Silencer Co" with "Leupold" or "Vortex" or "SIG" or "Ford" or any other large company with a large market share and documented reliability issues. Most users won't experience any issues. No company is perfect. If Tikka or SWFA or "other RokSlide favorite" suddenly starts having widespread QC issues, we can be certain that a number of people will come along and fill the thread with delightful chortling. That's not what I am about, I don't want to see products or companies fail. I want to see better products fill the marketplace.

The point was made that Silencer Co has had to "go silent" due to pending litigation. That would be one thing, if it was actually happening. But Silencer Co has not "gone silent." Their customer service people are making all kinds of statements - some of which are manifestly untrue. I called Silencer Co to ask them about the failure rate and what I could do to ensure that I didn't have any issues.
They told me, words to the effect of, "All the failures are due to user abuse. The users failed to follow the published ROF of 10 RPM. Failure to follow the published ROF can result in excessive heat, which can weaken the welds and result in failure. These restrictions are published in the user manual. By the way, don't worry, if it does fail due to your abuse, no one has been seriously hurt. If you stick to the published ROF of 10 RPM, you will not have any issues unless you do something else unsafe. Also, just so you know, using handloaded or reloaded ammunition counts as unsafe."*

You can read the manual and their website. There is no published 10 RPM ROF. The marketing video actually shows people allegedly using the Scythe and apparently firing more than 10 RPM.


* The reload or handload restriction actually is in the field manual, down in the warranty section, but not in the marketing materials on the website. How many people knew that using handloads might void your warranty before they bought the can?

Contrast that complete absence of any published 10 RPM ROF with what you read on the Airlock page when you purchase one of their cans.

So, my problem with Silencer Co isn't just that they have "had some failures." It's their entire approach to their failures.

Have a good day, folks.
 
I don’t think this is a very fair statement. I will say as a prior silencershop dealer, I didn’t send a single SiCo can back or hear about one blowing up for the 7-8 years I ran the shop.

They’ve had a few failures but so have every other company. For every can that’s blown up there’s 100,000+ of them out there that the user isn’t posting on the internet “hey my can didn’t blow up today.”

I had one 5.56 can fail on me personally but it was user error. They fixed it for me for free.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You can ship the silencer back to the manufacturer directly, no need to go through an FFL, so even if there were failures, it'd not surprise me if you didn't know.
 
You can ship the silencer back to the manufacturer directly, no need to go through an FFL, so even if there were failures, it'd not surprise me if you didn't know.

I was pretty in-tune with my customers, even when they handled complaints on their own with manufacturers. Definitely a chance that there were some we didn’t know about, but I’d say it’s probably a pretty small chance. We were often the first step people took when they had an issue and we’d help them through the warranty process as needed. (This is for all items sold not specifically cans.)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Seems like weld failures should not happen with an automated orbital welder? QC should be able calibrate it for a full penetration weld. But we are merely humans and things happen. I have the old Harvester 30 probably 1500 plus rounds from various calibers, no issues. It's gained a few ounces but that's it. I'm new to 3D printing, any failure there?
 
Silencer Co has sold more than 20,000 Scythes. There are about 50 failures reported in the thread. If that percentage is acceptable to you, as it clearly is to Silencer Co, then carry on. You see a low failure rate. For me, I see a company with a relatively large market share that won't honestly address a potential problem because the risks of failure are outweighed by the benefits of selling more products.

By way of comparison, SIG Sauer sold over 3 million P320s. There are about 100 reported failures. SIG is fighting this hard. It has a ton to lose. If we want to go just off statistical odds, the SIG P320 is far less likely to fail than the Scythe Ti (of course, the likely severity of injury is arguably much greater for the SIG). I have used SIG Sauer pistols for 25 years without any issues. The P320 issues won't stop me from continuing to use my P226 and P365, but I wouldn't buy a P320. And I wouldn't attack anyone who felt differently about it.

Remington's recall on the 700 series potentially affected 7.5 million rifles and 1.3 million were actually recalled. There were about 2000 complaints. To their credit, Remington did actually issue a recall and suffered the consequences of poor management decisions.

Ford sold over 2.1 million Pintos between 1971 and 1977. 38 of them caught fire in rear end collisions. 24 people died and 27 were injured. "Internal company documents showed Ford was aware of the defect but decided to prioritize production over safety, believing it was cheaper to pay for injuries and deaths than to modify the design." Potentially the same situation here? Statistically, the Ford Pinto had a lower failure rate than the Scythe Ti (although no one has died from a Scythe Ti failure).

When I look at Silencer Co, I see a company that has a relatively large share of the market that continues to have the same kinds of failures that plagued it in the past. Welding titanium is hard. It can result in brittle weak spots. They recalled five models for precisely that problem just two years ago. Silencer Co knows it is a problem. The company continues to churn out tons of cans, sell them relatively cheaply (my LGS had a promotion on them for about $600 last month), while still making a decent profit, and drown out the competition. People look at the marketing materials and things that Silencer Co feeds industry shills and decide to purchase their products. See, e.g., https://www.gunsandammo.com/editorial/silencerco-scythe-ti-suppressor/485440

(By the way, doesn't this testing regimen sound really familiar? Is it actually a good way to test the strength of titanium cans? I don't know.)

I know other suppressor companies have had issues with titanium weld failures in the past - the TBAC 2021 recall is one noted example. But I also don't see continued failures of the same kind with TBAC. Whatever caused the weld failures in the past, it seems to have been addressed. They either have a better process, a better safety margin, or better QC to catch potential failures before they go out. Or maybe they will have issues again? I don't know.

When I see 20,000 Scythes being sold, I see a relatively large company that is swamping the market with a product that employs a technique that continues to fail. I see a market in which it is harder for an innovative startup to compete. I want to see companies competing to make more reliable products, not just more products.

And, when I see people who have not experienced any failures with their Silencer Co cans reporting their positive individual experiences, I replace "Silencer Co" with "Leupold" or "Vortex" or "SIG" or "Ford" or any other large company with a large market share and documented reliability issues. Most users won't experience any issues. No company is perfect. If Tikka or SWFA or "other RokSlide favorite" suddenly starts having widespread QC issues, we can be certain that a number of people will come along and fill the thread with delightful chortling. That's not what I am about, I don't want to see products or companies fail. I want to see better products fill the marketplace.

The point was made that Silencer Co has had to "go silent" due to pending litigation. That would be one thing, if it was actually happening. But Silencer Co has not "gone silent." Their customer service people are making all kinds of statements - some of which are manifestly untrue. I called Silencer Co to ask them about the failure rate and what I could do to ensure that I didn't have any issues.
They told me, words to the effect of, "All the failures are due to user abuse. The users failed to follow the published ROF of 10 RPM. Failure to follow the published ROF can result in excessive heat, which can weaken the welds and result in failure. These restrictions are published in the user manual. By the way, don't worry, if it does fail due to your abuse, no one has been seriously hurt. If you stick to the published ROF of 10 RPM, you will not have any issues unless you do something else unsafe. Also, just so you know, using handloaded or reloaded ammunition counts as unsafe."*

You can read the manual and their website. There is no published 10 RPM ROF. The marketing video actually shows people allegedly using the Scythe and apparently firing more than 10 RPM.


* The reload or handload restriction actually is in the field manual, down in the warranty section, but not in the marketing materials on the website. How many people knew that using handloads might void your warranty before they bought the can?

Contrast that complete absence of any published 10 RPM ROF with what you read on the Airlock page when you purchase one of their cans.

So, my problem with Silencer Co isn't just that they have "had some failures." It's their entire approach to their failures.

Have a good day, folks.

That’s a lot of time spent crafting that response to try to convince someone how to spend their money… you can mention it once but then why continue to fight when it’s not your money or your company?

My harvester 300 has been a great can, so has my AB raptor


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Of course there can be manufacturing errors. That’s why good products are well-tested and include reasonable safety margins. And that’s why good companies list the restrictions and specifications in the user manual and on the web page. Read the old Guns & Ammo article about the Scythe… they talk about how intensely they tested it. Hell, they told Guns & Ammo it was good for one round per second until it reached 600 degrees. Something that was actually tested like that should not fail and should not have customer service lying to customers about the published ROF.

When is the last time you heard of a modern rifle barrel bursting under otherwise normally safe circumstances while being properly used?

Forgive me if I expect as much safety margin and QC to go into a $1000 suppressor as I expect from a $400 rifle.

This will be my last post on this thread. Good night.
I thought you were done posting on this thread?
 
Back
Top