Suppressed Group Sizes (Need Help)

[BrentH]

Looks like you found it. Now, it’s not the suppressor. It’s the attaching mechanism.

Just to confirm, you think the first baffle looks that rough from being struck by the bullet?

 

[Q_Sertorius]

Just to confirm, you think the first baffle looks that rough from being struck by the bullet?

That’s what it looks like to me. I think the adapter you are using needs to be replaced. If you complain to whichever company you got it from, they might replace it without charge. That’s what Banish did for me.


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

 

[Dan Carey]

Its hard to tell from the photo, could be. Most of the time the strikes will be half way down the tube and worse at the end cap, thats what I think i'm seeing with yours.

 

[BrentH]

I had originally went with the hellfire system because I planned to swap suppressors between guns, but then I decided to just buy two suppressors. Should I just go back to the TBAC attachment (if I can find one)?

 

[Q_Sertorius]

I had originally went with the hellfire system because I planned to swap suppressors between guns, but then I decided to just buy two suppressors. Should I just go back to the TBAC attachment (if I can find one)?

I think so. The simpler the system the better.


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

 

[Dan Carey]

When they came out with the quick-detach systems they knew they had stacking problems. The suppressor manufacturers increased the size of the hole in the suppressor to try an negate the tolerance stacking problem. I like direct screw on suppressors, not as sexy as the TBAC ect but always quieter, and never a baffle strike if tight.
In your case, you already are committed to some type of an adapter, so use whatever will work best for you. What does the suppressor manufacturer recommend

 

[justin davis]

Must be the attachment system. I’ve always used the TBAC CB mounts. They seem to work well and no issues for me

When they came out with the quick-detach systems they knew they had stacking problems. The suppressor manufacturers increased the size of the hole in the suppressor to try an negate the tolerance stacking problem. I like direct screw on suppressors, not as sexy as the TBAC ect but always quieter, and never a baffle strike if tight.
In your case, you already are committed to some type of an adapter, so use whatever will work best for you. What does the suppressor manufacturer recommend

Direct thread is quieter than other attaching systems? Can you explain that to me

 

[BrentH]

Am I correct that I do not need to “time” the CB brake if I don’t plan to shoot it without the suppressor attached? i.e. the suppressor doesn’t care what position the brake ports are located.

 

[Dan Carey]

Thats correct, timing only has an effect on the dirt around you. Unless the manufacturer has a blast chamber that need a certain directional gas flow.

 

[Dan Carey]

Direct thread is quieter than other attaching systems? Can you explain that to me

The quick answer is The size of the hole in the baffles is increased to account for the tolerance stacking of adapters.

 

[justin davis]

The quick answer is The size of the hole in the baffles is increased to account for the tolerance stacking of adapters.

Ok So Thunderbeast when they do a “direct thread can.” From what I understand they glue in a cb mount. And then that threads onto the barrel directly. So it’s the exact same as using a cb mount that is attached to a barrel already?

 

[E.Shell]

I have a ThunderBeast Magnus that came with some sort of QD adapter. It was not glued in, I easily removed the QD device and installed a direct thread HUB adapter.

 

[wind gypsy]

The quick answer is The size of the hole in the baffles is increased to account for the tolerance stacking of adapters.

The vast majority of recent can designs have a hub that makes it modular for whatever attachment method someone wants to use so fair to say there is no difference in baffle hole diameter between most recent designs regardless of attachment method. That said, i could see most DT models having a little more volume inside the blast baffle than those with an adapter brake or flash hider that extends into the can so maybe a hair more suppression due to that?

 

[wind gypsy]

You guys think the Area 419 adapter is more likely to be buggered than the Ruger muzzle threads? I do not. @BrentH if the threads are the same pitch as the seekins (i think they are), attach the stuff from that rifle and the magnus on there and look through it to see if it seems aligned. I would guess that ruger's muzzle threads are more likely to be the culprit than the can/adapter.

I use the CB system in a couple cans with the TBAC CB flash hider adapters. If I were buying another adapter it'd be the SRS CB-mini to save on $ and weight and possibly even get better suppression.

 

[Dan Carey]

The vast majority of recent can designs have a hub that makes it modular for whatever attachment method someone wants to use so fair to say there is no difference in baffle hole diameter between most recent designs regardless of attachment method. That said, i could see most DT models having a little more volume inside the blast baffle than those with an adapter brake or flash hider that extends into the can so maybe a hair more suppression due to that?

Telling me I'm wrong does not make me wrong. So now prove me wrong.

 

[wind gypsy]

Telling me I'm wrong does not make me wrong. So not prove me wrong.

Did you read and comprehend my post? I dont doubt what you say about bores being made a little looser when adapters started to become more commonplace. I'm just saying recent designs aren't strictly direct thread or adapter - they are flexible to let end user choose. Some dont come with an interface at all and leave it to buyer to buy whichever hub they want to use. Are you saying still today, most silencer manufacturers are making cans that come with a direct thread tighter than the same line the ship with an adapter?

TBAC (the can in this thread) has made it clear, the difference between their CB (adapter) and direct thread cans is that rather than the adapter being separate, it's lock tited into the can and called a direct thread.

From Otter Creek Lab's infinity product listing, 78% of their customers said they dont even use the direct thread hubs they provide with their cans:

 

[Dan Carey]

I don't care about the design of the suppressor or the adapter. Suppressors today have a larger hole in the baffles to allow for lousy designed adapters. Any one that knows anything about suppressors knows the bigger the hole is the less efficient the suppressor is. Suppressors today are like fishing lures, they have a lot of CNC cut designs on the outside of the tube which catches the eye of the buyer and does nothing in the way of suppressing the sound. My original statement stands. "The quick answer is The size of the hole in the baffles is increased to account for the tolerance stacking of adapters."

 

[BRTreedogs]

I don't care about the design of the suppressor or the adapter. Suppressors today have a larger hole in the baffles to allow for lousy designed adapters. Any one that knows anything about suppressors knows the bigger the hole is the less efficient the suppressor is. Suppressors today are like fishing lures, they have a lot of CNC cut designs on the outside of the tube which catches the eye of the buyer and does nothing in the way of suppressing the sound. My original statement stands. "The quick answer is The size of the hole in the baffles is increased to account for the tolerance stacking of adapters."

So you’re saying they make 2 different baffle stacks?
One for direct thread that’s not oversized and there for quieter?

Show us any thing in writing from any manufacturer that proves this.

 

[Dan Carey]

I didn't say anything like that. I know better.

 

[BRTreedogs]

I didn't say anything like that. I know better.

How would direct thread be quieter then?