RUGGED ALASKAN 360

[Tyler89k]

I am currently running a rugged and love it but I am looking for something a little more compact. something 30 Cal rated. anyone have any suggestions on a direction to go that is more compact and hearing safe?

 

[thinhorn_AK]

This is one of the worst choices of what's available. From a value/performance standpoint, the titanium version could be the absolute worst option available.

 

[DoubleDown]

IMO K size cans don’t really belong on hunting rifles, unless shooting subsonic loads. They’re still too loud and not truly hearing safe. Sure K cans look good, but in practice they just add extra weight without much benefit.

 

[Tyler89k]

Mines the standard and my first suppressor. From just a shooting point i have liked it but from a hunting point it is just a tab bit bulk.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

I am currently running a rugged and love it but I am looking for something a little more compact. something 30 Cal rated. anyone have any suggestions on a direction to go that is more compact and hearing safe?

The only short (below 6”) 7.62 caliber suppressor option I would consider is the OG (or OGL). The TBAC Ultra 5 is a poor second choice, in my opinion.

My recommendation would change if Airlock releases a .30 caliber can that is comparable with their 6.5 caliber can.

If you want to use 6” cans, then you open up many more options to get far better suppression. This spreadsheet might help.

Q's Suppressor Comparisons

docs.google.com

 

[Q_Sertorius]

Mines the standard and my first suppressor. From just a shooting point i have liked it but from a hunting point it is just a tab bit bulk.

The TBAC summit results seem like that Rugged Alaskan 360 suppressor would be just fine for a .30 caliber can (in the long variant), but there are certainly slightly shorter, lighter cans that offer a bit more suppression.

 

[B_Reynolds_AK]

This is one of the worst choices of what's available. From a value/performance standpoint, the titanium version could be the absolute worst option available.

This is 100% correct.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

This is 100% correct.

What makes it so bad? It seems to have tested out fairly well at the TBAC Summit. I agree that there are lighter, shorter options that rate better, so it wouldn't be my first choice, but the suppression numbers with .308 are not terrible.

 

[B_Reynolds_AK]

What makes it so bad? It seems to have tested out fairly well at the TBAC Summit. I agree that there are lighter, shorter options that rate better, so it wouldn't be my first choice, but the suppression numbers with .308 are not terrible.

View attachment 951164

Just imagine what a .360 bore suppressor with only 4 baffles sounds like. An AB raptor 8 has twice the baffles. The Scythe has 7.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

Just imagine what a .360 bore suppressor with only 4 baffles sounds like. An AB raptor 8 has twice the baffles. The Scythe has 7.

So, the numbers from the TBAC summit are wrong?

 

[B_Reynolds_AK]

So, the numbers from the TBAC summit are wrong?

I have no idea if they are or not. I do know that it was significantly louder than a Scythe. I transferred it over to a friend that didnt mind.

 

[wind gypsy]

So, the numbers from the TBAC summit are wrong?

They measured it as 5 and change Dba louder than a nomad XC at shooters ear with a 308 and the Ti one is expensive AF.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

They measured it as 5 Dba louder than a nomad XC at shooters ear with a 308 and the Ti one is expensive AF.

The Rugged Alaskan 360 Ti also weighs 6.6 ounces, is 6.9" long, and 1.6" diameter. Assuming that the TBAC summit numbers are accurate - and that the Ti one has the same numbers as the steel and titanium one - the Nomad Ti XC may be a better can from a suppression point of view (but also weighs 3 ounces more, is .3" longer, and .15" larger in diameter). Those differences may or may not matter to the OP. I cannot tell him whether those differences matter to him. I can only help him see those differences using the most reliable data I can find.

Some people have stated that the titanium version of the OP's current can is "the absolute worst option available." I don't see where the OP asked about the Rugged Alaskan 360 Ti.

I'm not trying to advocate for the Rugged Alaskan 360 (or the Ti version). I don't own one. I've never heard one. The OP does own a Rugged Alaskan can and he loves it. He wants to get a .30 caliber can that is compact and hearing safe. He asked for advice finding that.

If people are going to limit their advice to, "[the titanium version of your existing can is] the absolute worst option available," that's not really helpful. It's like saying, "you asked about swordfish, but I want to tell you that salmon is the worst, you shouldn't like salmon, cod is better than salmon, you should like cod more than salmon."

What they are saying about the Rugged Alaskan 360 is also not supported by objective facts. There are many cans that are heavier, longer, wider, and louder (some of which don't even measure under 140 db or 140 dbA). There are also many cans which are quieter, shorter, etc. I suspect that some people don't like the way the "Alaskan" can was marketed (I've read their older posts on the topic).

I try to approach these things objectively and focus on hard numbers, not subjective impressions. I'm trying to understand how a can that tested out objectively decently with standard .308 ammunition can be "the absolute worst option available." And help the OP thereby understand how to frame his search for his next suppressor. Of course, there are also things that numbers don't show...

The helpful information users can provide is, "you may not know it, but the Scythe Ti has a reported failure rate worse than the Sig P320 or Ford Pinto, so I wouldn't recommend buying that one." Or at least put the subjective impressions into context. Something like, "Compared with a Scythe Ti, which was fired on the same day, under the same environmental conditions, with the same rifle chambered in W cartridge, with X barrel length, and Y ammunition, this can sounded worse to me." Or, "this can doesn't break, but it comes apart after firing 20 rounds." Or, "this can develops extreme mirage after three rounds, if you get it, you probably need a suppressor cover."

 

[wind gypsy]

The Rugged Alaskan 360 Ti also weighs 6.6 ounces, is 6.9" long, and 1.6" diameter. Assuming that the TBAC summit numbers are accurate - and that the Ti one has the same numbers as the steel and titanium one - the Nomad Ti XC may be a better can from a suppression point of view (but also weighs 3 ounces more, is .3" longer, and .15" larger in diameter). Those differences may or may not matter to the OP. I cannot tell him whether those differences matter to him. I can only help him see those differences using the most reliable data I can find.

Some people have stated that the titanium version of the OP's current can is "the absolute worst option available." I don't see where the OP asked about the Rugged Alaskan 360 Ti.

I'm not trying to advocate for the Rugged Alaskan 360 (or the Ti version). I don't own one. I've never heard one. The OP does own a Rugged Alaskan can and he loves it. He wants to get a .30 caliber can that is compact and hearing safe. He asked for advice finding that.

If people are going to limit their advice to, "[the titanium version of your existing can is] the absolute worst option available," that's not really helpful. It's like saying, "you asked about swordfish, but I want to tell you that salmon is the worst, you shouldn't like salmon, cod is better than salmon, you should like cod more than salmon."

What they are saying about the Rugged Alaskan 360 is also not supported by objective facts. There are many cans that are heavier, longer, wider, and louder (some of which don't even measure under 140 db or 140 dbA). There are also many cans which are quieter, shorter, etc. I suspect that some people don't like the way the "Alaskan" can was marketed (I've read their older posts on the topic).

I try to approach these things objectively and focus on hard numbers, not subjective impressions. I'm trying to understand how a can that tested out objectively decently with standard .308 ammunition can be "the absolute worst option available." And help the OP thereby understand how to frame his search for his next suppressor. Of course, there are also things that numbers don't show...

The helpful information users can provide is, "you may not know it, but the Scythe Ti has a reported failure rate worse than the Sig P320 or Ford Pinto, so I wouldn't recommend buying that one." Or at least put the subjective impressions into context. Something like, "Compared with a Scythe Ti, which was fired on the same day, under the same environmental conditions, with the same rifle chambered in W cartridge, with X barrel length, and Y ammunition, this can sounded worse to me." Or, "this can doesn't break, but it comes apart after firing 20 rounds." Or, "this can develops extreme mirage after three rounds, if you get it, you probably need a suppressor cover."

Edit: @Q_Sertorius I see your point on helpful feedback.. It's still a functional suppressor and not particularly bulky and there isn't going to be a great option from a suppression standpoint that is significantly smaller. An OG will shorter (in front of barrel), heavier, maybe have comparable suppression. Ultra 5 will probably have worse suppression.

That's a lot of words.

Seems you missed "From a value/performance standpoint, it could be the worst option available". It retails for $1.8k+. It's actually longer than a nomad XC when both use factory DT adapters (TBAC summit #s on XC are wrong on that front). The XC closes most of the weight gap with a ti DT adapter as well. I've seen reports that the gap is larger yet on smaller bore cartridges. Also, they tested with the RUM mount which puts the muzzle significantly further back from the first baffle which may have helped the results a bit vs the ti with light weight adapter.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

That's a lot of words.

Seems you missed "From a value/performance standpoint, it could be the worst option available". It retails for $1.8k+. It's actually longer than a nomad XC when both use factory DT adapters (TBAC summit #s on XC are wrong on that front). The XC closes most of the weight gap with a ti DT adapter as well. I've seen reports that the gap is larger yet on smaller bore cartridges. Also, they tested with the RUM mount which puts the muzzle significantly further back from the first baffle which may have helped the results a bit vs the ti with light weight adapter.

Dead Air Nomad Ti XC 136.4 SE dB 126.71 SE dBA 11 ounces (9.6 w/ DT) 7.29" (6.74" w/ DT) 1.75"
Rugged Alaskan 136.93 SE dB 131.97 SE dBA 6.6 ounces w/ DT 6.9" with DT 1.6"

Lengths and weights are from Silencer Shop, since TBAC data doesn't cover the Ti version.



There is no question in my mind that the Dead Air Nomad Ti XC is a great option, even a great bargain compared to the Rugged Alaskan 360 Ti, but at least don't misstate the available price. Which gets even better if you later want to buy another Dead Air silencer ($300 credit!). Only the OP can decide if he would rather pay $428 more for a can that isn't as quiet but weighs less.



Edit - but again, the question isn't about whether the OP should get a Rugged Alaskan 360 Ti, since he asked for a "more compact .30 caliber can."

 

[svivian]

Ironic rant....

@Tyler89k when you say compact are you referring to length past your barrel or overall size?

first ones that come to mind for overall length would be a US OGL or wait to see if Airlock Suppressors comes out with a .30cal option. However, there is not a ton of real world use on either of those cans available compared to other options that might be longer/less compact.

If size was not as big of a factor the Nomad Ti XC would be my first pick if I was buying full price today.