Silencerco Scythe TI review

[5811]

In addition to being modular its stainless rather than Ti:

"We're launching a new member of the Scythe-Ti family called the Scythe STM. It's a stainless modular version of our Scythe. So, in the short configuration, it's a little bit shorter than the Ti and in the long configuration, it's a couple of baffles longer. Full-auto rated, no barrel restrictions. It's a pretty awesome can."

SHOT Show Exhibitor Profile: SilencerCo | NSSF SHOT Show 2025

In this exclusive Q&A from the SHOT Show, we had the opportunity to speak with SilencerCo Vice President of Marketing, Mike Aland.

shotshow.org

So a stainless Banish 30? We know how much people like that modularity, cough cough @thinhorn_AK

 

[Tahoe1305]

Wait. No barrel restrictions?????

Just like the Scythe Ti….kind of……

 

[Jbehredt]

Wait. No barrel restrictions?????

Just like the Scythe Ti….kind of……

My guess would be they use the stainless version hype as cover to quietly put some restrictions on the ti.

 

[Tahoe1305]

My guess would be they use the stainless version hype as cover to quietly put some restrictions on the ti.

If it’s still only 8oz (even short only) I’m sold.

Something tells me will be closer to omega weights of 11/14oz (my guess)

 

[Trackselk]

If it’s still only 8oz (even short only) I’m sold.

Something tells me will be closer to omega weights of 11/14oz (my guess)

Add about 50% weight for steel one if my math is right. Probably more for modular one that has a set of threads versus everything being welded together.

 

[Bluefish]

Add about 50% weight for steel one if my math is right. Probably more for modular one that has a set of threads versus everything being welded together.

If the baffle count and diameter are the same, you are right. I know AB makes the stainless versions one less baffle and thus weight is closer to 25% more, not 50. Also a big reduction in price.

 

[TheM1DoesMyTalking]

My guess would be they use the stainless version hype as cover to quietly put some restrictions on the ti.

I don't understand why SiCo hasn't updated the Scythe Ti specs and manual with restrictions after doing multiple repairs on failed welds. Maybe these anecdotal seperations are just a blip on the radar for them compared to sales volume.

They say the Scythe Ti is for bolt and semi, not rated for full auto. They say no barrel length restrictions.

But why don't they do what other suppressor manufacturers have done and publish a firing schedule (XX shots before allowing the suppressor to cool) or a temperature limit (keep under 800 degrees) to help their customers avoid weakening their cans and having a weld let go when they use it on a short barreled magnum?

My guess is that the amount of shooting they would have to do to replicate these failures and identify reasonable limitations is percieved as cost and time prohibitive. But it's exactly what I'd want a suppressor manufacturer to invest in up front and not use their customers as product testers.

Another possibility is that they have identified something internally with their orbital welding process, or their training and process adherance, or weld inspection (penetrant or x-ray) or something else that they have changed in the background that they think has resolved this issue without making any statements or recalls.

 

[Tahoe1305]

I don't understand why SiCo hasn't updated the Scythe Ti specs and manual with restrictions after doing multiple repairs on failed welds. Maybe these anecdotal seperations are just a blip on the radar for them compared to sales volume.

They say the Scythe Ti is for bolt and semi, not rated for full auto. They say no barrel length restrictions.

But why don't they do what other suppressor manufacturers have done and publish a firing schedule (XX shots before allowing the suppressor to cool) or a temperature limit (keep under 800 degrees) to help their customers avoid weakening their cans and having a weld let go when they use it on a short barreled magnum?

My guess is that the amount of shooting they would have to do to replicate these failures and identify reasonable limitations is percieved as cost and time prohibitive. But it's exactly what I'd want a suppressor manufacturer to invest in up front and not use their customers as product testers.

Another possibility is that they have identified something internally with their orbital welding process, or their training and process adherance, or weld inspection (penetrant or x-ray) or something else that they have changed in the background that they think has resolved this issue without making any statements or recalls.

They actually doubled down the other way and two weeks ago sent an article out to anyone subscribed explaining how great the suppressor is with no limits. I laughed a bit.

 

[Jbehredt]

They actually doubled down the other way and two weeks ago sent an article out to anyone subscribed explaining how great the suppressor is with no limits. I laughed a bit.

Just leave it off that list and quietly ease people into the idea that it’s not quite indestructible.