SilencerCo Scythe Ti failures

I got a Scythe this year to use on lighter "walking" rifles. I really wasn't concerned about failures initially as I have seen people that abuse stuff and could break an anvil. My concern has grown. My use case is on a 18 inch 308 and 17 inch 6 ARC....

It seems all the manufacturers rushed these ti cans out with hunters doing the beta testing. I wrote Silencerco a letter with my concerns and the general impression of the shooting community. Curious on their response. Hope I don't just have an ultralight range can that needs to be in close proximity to my first-aid kit.
 
If guys could post bare suppressor weights when they get them back I’d be grateful. My bare can, no adapter/end cap weighed 6.42 oz new. Would be nice to see them coming back heavier ergo thicker eventually. Wishful thinking I suppose.
 
Checking to see if the poll can be put back on, nit sure what happened????
I was wondering if SiCo had their lawyers send a strongly worded letter about statistical significance and improper sampling or some such thing.

The way around that is to note that it is a convenience sample and thus highly prone to sampling bias and extreme caution must be used when extrapolating the sample results to the population. (All of which is true).

Or, perhaps it was just a glitch when the thread was moved to the new suppressor section.
 
I was wondering if SiCo had their lawyers send a strongly worded letter about statistical significant and improper sampling or some such thing.

The way around that is to note that it is a convenience sample and thus highly prone to sampling bias and extreme caution must be used when extrapolating to sample results to the population. (All of which is true).

Or, perhaps it was just a glitch when the thread was moved to the new suppressor section.

Sounds like Ryan took it down Friday, so we're getting clarification. ^ Very possible as evidently this thread is frequently linked.

The failures (and double failures) are still annotated within the thread, but obviously tougher to pull that information out w/ no poll.
 
I was wondering if SiCo had their lawyers send a strongly worded letter about statistical significants and improper sampling or some such thing.

The way around that is to note that it is a convenience sample and thus highly prone to sampling bias and extreme caution must be used when extrapolating the sample results to the population. (All of which is true).

Or, perhaps it was just a glitch when the thread was moved to the new suppressor section.


1757963285265.jpeg
 
For clarification, when the thread got moved into the suppressor subforum it lost the poll. Was this just a yes or no poll?
No, iirc it asked if you had no failure, 1 failure, 2nd failure and 3rd failure. I know there were a couple that failed again after being repaired, can't recall if anyone had a 3rd failure.
 
I think it was no failure, one failure, two failures, three failures.

You had the option of changing your vote as well.

Someone correct me if I’m wrong
 
Back
Top