Affordable suppressor for both the AR15 & AK74

Nice to see affordable suppressors. Whats the reduction Db rating?

I saw you said it's comparable to 22lr that's pretty good. A friend and I haven't heard a rifle fired suppressed and where wondering how loud it actually is. Since my SM556 is perma welded i'm subject to the KAC NT4 or the Gemtech Halo and I've read it's advised to still wear hearing protection when firing a suppressed rifle. Will have to try and make the AAC shoot this year.
 
I would imagine it's advisable to wear hearing protection when shooting a suppressed rifle.

I would say it's about like a Ruger 10/22 being fired with standard velocity ammo. I found it to be comfortable without hearing protection. I also don't wear hearing protection when I do things like mowing my lawn, and I know some people do. So everyone has different comfort levels.

It's not like a good can on a 45 ACP with subsonic ammo and running the can wet in terms of how quiet it is.
 
Im not one that wears protection around loud equipment either. My friend was just telling me how he wants to be able to shoot his AR without hearing protection or he doesn't really have any interest in a suppressor. Me i'm sort of the opposite sure i would like to run it without hearing protection but the other advantages of a suppressor are still in my interest, recoil reduction, and almost no flash signature is a huge plus IMO. As i'll be using my all of my current rifles suppressed eventually and plan on using them to predator hunt at night. Eventually using night vision as well.
 
I have to say a suppressed center fire rifle is still MUCH louder than a suppressed rimfire rifle.

I found this out the first time I fired my own AAC M4-2000. It's still pretty loud but not quite loud enough to get my ears ringing.
 
I looked at the video. I'm wondering whether ATF will claim that some of those suppressor parts are technically "suppressors" even though they are not the serial numbered parts. I.e. any .556 parts laying around while you have it mounted on an AK might still technically be suppressors. And, if you only have one registration, then you may be in possession of an illegal suppressor, via the un-used parts.
 
Skans said:
I looked at the video. I'm wondering whether ATF will claim that some of those suppressor parts are technically "suppressors" even though they are not the serial numbered parts. I.e. any .556 parts laying around while you have it mounted on an AK might still technically be suppressors. And, if you only have one registration, then you may be in possession of an illegal suppressor, via the un-used parts.
Click to expand...

I understand what you're talking about. But what about user serviceable suppressors? Why isn't every single baffle, the end cap, and the body considered an individual suppressor?
 
I think Skans is talking about the mounts used for the M16 and the Krink.

To my knowledge the ATF went after YHM declaring their mounts to be part of the suppressor but they have not made any similar action toward other manufacturers. Just about everyone in the suppressor biz has a quick mount offering.

I don't know how the YHM suppressor mount thing was resolved. Anyone know how that worked out? Were the mounts ruled to be part of the suppressor?
 
Willie Lowman said:
I don't know how the YHM suppressor mount thing was resolved. Anyone know how that worked out? Were the mounts ruled to be part of the suppressor?
Click to expand...
That nonsense was dropped by the ATF. They called YHM and told them they could no longer sell their flash hider mounts separately. They said it increased the over all length of the suppressor. They further went on to say they could only sell one mount per suppressor.

They couldn't defend their position. Probably because of all the different suppressors and mounts already out there. How would they know for sure that the mounts are "legal or not" since they are not serial numbered and have no way of tracking how many are out there already?

There was no way to "enforce" these new rules they made up, so they dropped that particular issue. This was in 2009. I have never seen a letter from the atf asking YHM to cease selling, nor have I seen a letter from the ATF saying it was okay.

In any respect, they are now doing it again.

My point in my questioning, is much along those lines though. The ATF has long held that any suppressor part is a suppressor in and of itself. I believe this to be completely unenforceable as well. When you take a suppressor apart to clean, you have a bunch of "suppressor parts" that by the ATF's Logic are "suppressors in and of themselves." So, why are they even allowed to make suppressors that come apart?

In the same vein, I have a Trident-9 that has a booster for pistol use, and a solid mount for 1/2-36 threaded 9mm barrels, but other barrels are threaded 1/2-28 so I had to get a mount for them too. Why are those adapters not considered "suppressors" as well? Why is it you can buy pistons for the Osprey .45 that fit the 9mm? What about using a .45 Can on a left handed thread barrel like HK? All of these require different pistons, and no one gun will use all three pistons. Are the pistons themselves, all parts of the Osprey .45, considered suppressors in and of themselves?

They can't have it both ways. Either each part is a suppressor as they say it is and therefore they need to regulate them as such, or they are parts that when put together constitute a "suppressor."
 
We were discussing these silencers the other day on another forum (http://www.silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=81207 is where I quote from, here...)

semperfiusmc said:
John Titsworth said:
Krink's wont suppress well regarless of how quiet the silencer is, neither does any AK platform. You would think people that make suppressors would know this...
Click to expand...

We made a Krink hearing-safe with our Kestrel. We made an 10.5" AR machine gun hearing safe too. We also made a user-serviceable 5.56 can out of all stainless that weighs about the same as a Phantom, is shorter than an M4/2000, and quieter than a Halo that I guarantee will have a longer service life than any any welded suppressor. And in the even of baffle strikes or structural failures, we can replace components without having to slice the suppressor apart. I guess that since we don't know the rules and boundaries we are able to surpass them.

As far as the JUST AS GOOD AS subthread, I don't know what as good as means. We produce a great suppressor that can be disassembled and cleaned at a great price. Just in testing our Kestrel I've personally become convinced that user-serviceable centerfire suppressors are going to be a requirement just as rimfire suppressors are.

Emilio said:
No inconel but he says he would replace warn baffles , I woner about high power cans being able to unscrew but it's a good price and nice ideas. :D
Click to expand...


There are multiple sealing surfaces. In all the testing we've done we haven't had a single can come apart during firing, even with sustained machine gun fire.
Click to expand...

To which my reply was...

Indeed, those are exceedingly bold claims. Point of fact, if you made a 5.45x39 AK with short barrel (by "Krink" do you mean AKS74-U?) hearing safe you would be the first in the world to do so.

What dB at the ear were you testing? 1m to the side of the muzzle?

What grade of stainless? Any HT on the materials?

Surpass the rules and boundaries - generally smaller manufacturers will duck these questions. Be unique and different and actually answer.
Click to expand...

No answer was posted. I remain quite dubious.

It is also interesting to note that there are no dB numbers available on any of the products offered by this manufacturer. "Hearing safe" is not a measurement, but OSHA has guidelines.

http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=standards&p_id=9735 said:
Code: 
TABLE G-16 - PERMISSIBLE NOISE EXPOSURES (1)
______________________________________________________________
                            |
  Duration per day, hours   | Sound level dBA slow response
____________________________|_________________________________
                            |
8...........................|                    90
6...........................|                    92
4...........................|                    95
3...........................|                    97
2...........................|                   100
1 1/2 ......................|                   102
1...........................|                   105
1/2 ........................|                   110
1/4  or less................|                   115
____________________________|________________________________
Click to expand...

Seems that 115dB for a duration of only 15 minutes per day is the highest level that is permissible by OSHA. However, OSHA has this to say about impulse/peak sounds...

OSHA said:
Exposure to impulsive or impact noise should not exceed 140 dB peak sound pressure level.
Click to expand...

Keeping in mind that a short barreled 5.45x39 AK is over 165dB (168dB, near enough) without a silencer, any "hearing safe" silencer for this platform would need to reduce the noise signature by over 25 dB!

If anyone on here truly believes that a short barreled semi- or full-automatic centerfire rifle can be reduced in noise signature (including action noise, remaining blast, excess gas coming from the action, excess gas leaving the silencer, everything) to 140dB or under, then I've got a bridge for sale.

Please, wear earplugs.


EDIT: To make things clear, I'm not trying to bash the manufacturer. I simply don't want anyone to damage their ears thinking that what they have is "hearing safe", especially since this entire tirade assumes that at no point during the day is there any exposure to SPL of 90dB or higher. In modern life, this is a completely incorrect assumption.

Truly, hearing loss will hit every single one of us. Why encourage it?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top