Suppressors quick detach suppressor, bad idea??
- Thread starter 7.62_Reaper
- Start date
Re: quick detach suppressor, bad idea??
I run both & have no issues wih the QD can. As long as the POI shift is the same, I prefer the QD can, simply because you have a muzzle brake when running unsuppressed.
I run both & have no issues wih the QD can. As long as the POI shift is the same, I prefer the QD can, simply because you have a muzzle brake when running unsuppressed.
Re: quick detach suppressor, bad idea??
It's not a bad idea. I use a SF QD on my ar10 (and a few non precision rifles). It is convenient to just plop it on between different rigs.
I have thread on units as well, but that is my only QD, so i can't comment on any other designs. FWIW my POI shift is quite consistent with the can. I could see how there could easily be problems though if your mounting system is messed up or if the design is not exactly up to par. Surefire did a great job though on mine.
I like the thread on better overall though just for simplicity if you will not be needing to pop the can on and off a lot.
It's not a bad idea. I use a SF QD on my ar10 (and a few non precision rifles). It is convenient to just plop it on between different rigs.
I have thread on units as well, but that is my only QD, so i can't comment on any other designs. FWIW my POI shift is quite consistent with the can. I could see how there could easily be problems though if your mounting system is messed up or if the design is not exactly up to par. Surefire did a great job though on mine.
I like the thread on better overall though just for simplicity if you will not be needing to pop the can on and off a lot.
Re: quick detach suppressor, bad idea??
I am having my Gemtech HVT QD switched over to thread on. Had an issue with first round being off from rest of group (by about 4" at 100 yds). Gemtech suggested switching over so going with their recommendation. Will post up results when it comes back in about 4 weeks.
I am having my Gemtech HVT QD switched over to thread on. Had an issue with first round being off from rest of group (by about 4" at 100 yds). Gemtech suggested switching over so going with their recommendation. Will post up results when it comes back in about 4 weeks.
Re: quick detach suppressor, bad idea??
I would say that QD/FA is not a BAD idea...but not all QD/FA systems are created equal. Not even close.
As of late, there are some remarkable designs on market that are easily as stable as a direct thread on. You still are adding one more "step" to the barrel harmonics, but with the right design, you shouldn't have to worry about the "wiggle" that plagued a lot of past designs and contributed to legitimate concern.
I would say that QD/FA is not a BAD idea...but not all QD/FA systems are created equal. Not even close.
As of late, there are some remarkable designs on market that are easily as stable as a direct thread on. You still are adding one more "step" to the barrel harmonics, but with the right design, you shouldn't have to worry about the "wiggle" that plagued a lot of past designs and contributed to legitimate concern.
Re: quick detach suppressor, bad idea??
One other thing I didn't like about the QD was the back blast was getting scope pretty dirty, and was worried overtime it could damage the finish on my nightforce. This should be a non-issue with the thread on.
One other thing I didn't like about the QD was the back blast was getting scope pretty dirty, and was worried overtime it could damage the finish on my nightforce. This should be a non-issue with the thread on.
Re: quick detach suppressor, bad idea??
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: nfoley</div><div class="ubbcode-body">One other thing I didn't like about the QD was the back blast was getting scope pretty dirty, and was worried overtime it could damage the finish on my nightforce. This should be a non-issue with the thread on. </div></div>
What the heck model is causing that issue? I've seen gas "leak" from the back of a can, but NEVER directly back toward the optics. Always directly perpendicular to the barrel.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: nfoley</div><div class="ubbcode-body">One other thing I didn't like about the QD was the back blast was getting scope pretty dirty, and was worried overtime it could damage the finish on my nightforce. This should be a non-issue with the thread on. </div></div>
What the heck model is causing that issue? I've seen gas "leak" from the back of a can, but NEVER directly back toward the optics. Always directly perpendicular to the barrel.
Re: quick detach suppressor, bad idea??
thanks for the info i was looking at AAC's 7.62 SND-6 QD i heard that it is a good design with their blackout flashider what do you guys think any other models i should look at?
thanks for the info i was looking at AAC's 7.62 SND-6 QD i heard that it is a good design with their blackout flashider what do you guys think any other models i should look at?
Re: quick detach suppressor, bad idea??
It's not really a QUICK DETACH, but Thunderbeasts BA model has more of a course thread that is just as solid as a 5/8x24 direct thread...but faster. It's solid enough that when you look at it, or feel it...you won't know it's a break model unless you already know.
From the videos I've seen, I like the SilencerCO SAKER but it's currently only a 5.56 and won't be available for some time.
I also like the pics I've seen of the Mack Bros cans and their QD mounting options, but I haven't seen it in action yet either.
I've got a YHM Phantom QD and especially after it's got some rounds down it, it's perfectly fine as far as stability. There is perhaps 1/5th of 1° of purely rotational wiggle between teeth that I have not seen to cause ANY negative effects in accuracy.
It's not really a QUICK DETACH, but Thunderbeasts BA model has more of a course thread that is just as solid as a 5/8x24 direct thread...but faster. It's solid enough that when you look at it, or feel it...you won't know it's a break model unless you already know.
From the videos I've seen, I like the SilencerCO SAKER but it's currently only a 5.56 and won't be available for some time.
I also like the pics I've seen of the Mack Bros cans and their QD mounting options, but I haven't seen it in action yet either.
I've got a YHM Phantom QD and especially after it's got some rounds down it, it's perfectly fine as far as stability. There is perhaps 1/5th of 1° of purely rotational wiggle between teeth that I have not seen to cause ANY negative effects in accuracy.
Re: quick detach suppressor, bad idea??
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: c_bass16</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: nfoley</div><div class="ubbcode-body">One other thing I didn't like about the QD was the back blast was getting scope pretty dirty, and was worried overtime it could damage the finish on my nightforce. This should be a non-issue with the thread on. </div></div>
What the heck model is causing that issue? I've seen gas "leak" from the back of a can, but NEVER directly back toward the optics. Always directly perpendicular to the barrel. </div></div>
Gemtech HVT QD.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: c_bass16</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: nfoley</div><div class="ubbcode-body">One other thing I didn't like about the QD was the back blast was getting scope pretty dirty, and was worried overtime it could damage the finish on my nightforce. This should be a non-issue with the thread on. </div></div>
What the heck model is causing that issue? I've seen gas "leak" from the back of a can, but NEVER directly back toward the optics. Always directly perpendicular to the barrel. </div></div>
Gemtech HVT QD.
Re: quick detach suppressor, bad idea??
I guess now that you mention it nfoley...I can remember seeing minor signs of that when I tested the Bi-lock HVT, but on a 24" barrrel, I don't think it was ever bad enough to cause concern...for me anyway.
I guess now that you mention it nfoley...I can remember seeing minor signs of that when I tested the Bi-lock HVT, but on a 24" barrrel, I don't think it was ever bad enough to cause concern...for me anyway.
Re: quick detach suppressor, bad idea??
Yeah I think the longer the barrel the better it would be. I have it on a 20" 308 and a 14.5" POF 308. On the 14.5" it is real bad.
Yeah I think the longer the barrel the better it would be. I have it on a 20" 308 and a 14.5" POF 308. On the 14.5" it is real bad.
Re: quick detach suppressor, bad idea??
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: nfoley</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am having my Gemtech HVT QD switched over to thread on. Had an issue with first round being off from rest of group (by about 4" at 100 yds). Gemtech suggested switching over so going with their recommendation. Will post up results when it comes back in about 4 weeks.
</div></div> this is very interesting. I too have a Gemtech HVT and I normally shoot it on a 308 DPMS SASS. It just seems it needs to get warmed up before it settles into a predictable rhythm. The first shot is always off from previous zero by about 2-3 MOA. It takes about 10-15 rounds to get it to settle in. Can Gemtech switch it to a thread on can vice a QD? I would be very interested in this if they can do it
I also use a Thunderbest 30P-1 and love the thread on approach as it seems to be the most conducive for Precision. I only zero my rifles with the can on so I don't know the shift but it is Precision level. And, from the first shot to the last shot, the bullets go to the same place except when I am the error.
I am a thread on believer for Precision work.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: nfoley</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am having my Gemtech HVT QD switched over to thread on. Had an issue with first round being off from rest of group (by about 4" at 100 yds). Gemtech suggested switching over so going with their recommendation. Will post up results when it comes back in about 4 weeks.
</div></div> this is very interesting. I too have a Gemtech HVT and I normally shoot it on a 308 DPMS SASS. It just seems it needs to get warmed up before it settles into a predictable rhythm. The first shot is always off from previous zero by about 2-3 MOA. It takes about 10-15 rounds to get it to settle in. Can Gemtech switch it to a thread on can vice a QD? I would be very interested in this if they can do it
I also use a Thunderbest 30P-1 and love the thread on approach as it seems to be the most conducive for Precision. I only zero my rifles with the can on so I don't know the shift but it is Precision level. And, from the first shot to the last shot, the bullets go to the same place except when I am the error.
I am a thread on believer for Precision work.
Re: quick detach suppressor, bad idea??
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 7.62_Reaper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">thanks for the info i was looking at AAC's 7.62 SND-6 QD i heard that it is a good design with their blackout flashider what do you guys think any other models i should look at? </div></div>My first can was a thread-on Osprey. My second was an AAC 762-SDN-6, which is QD on a 51T flash hider.
When I first installed the AAC can I noticed the 'wiggle' and thought I had a defective can or mount. I read the manual and AAC specifically mentions that there may be some wiggle, and that it's of no concern.
I still don't like it, but to be honest I haven't seen any issues because of it.
The Osprey thread-on mount is awesome. Indexes perfectly every time. Some people have said that the AAC mount wiggles intentionally, to keep carbon build-up from locking the can to the mount. I'm skeptical.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 7.62_Reaper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">thanks for the info i was looking at AAC's 7.62 SND-6 QD i heard that it is a good design with their blackout flashider what do you guys think any other models i should look at? </div></div>My first can was a thread-on Osprey. My second was an AAC 762-SDN-6, which is QD on a 51T flash hider.
When I first installed the AAC can I noticed the 'wiggle' and thought I had a defective can or mount. I read the manual and AAC specifically mentions that there may be some wiggle, and that it's of no concern.
I still don't like it, but to be honest I haven't seen any issues because of it.
The Osprey thread-on mount is awesome. Indexes perfectly every time. Some people have said that the AAC mount wiggles intentionally, to keep carbon build-up from locking the can to the mount. I'm skeptical.
Re: quick detach suppressor, bad idea??
what the wiggle causes is inconsistent point of impacts (POI). I run an AAC M4/2000 and I have one mount that has a wiggle in it while the other three mounts do not. The mount with the wiggle throws rounds very inconsistent from one range trip to another. For AAC to say that it is not an issue makes me VERY skeptical based upon my experience.
what the wiggle causes is inconsistent point of impacts (POI). I run an AAC M4/2000 and I have one mount that has a wiggle in it while the other three mounts do not. The mount with the wiggle throws rounds very inconsistent from one range trip to another. For AAC to say that it is not an issue makes me VERY skeptical based upon my experience.
Re: quick detach suppressor, bad idea??
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: nfoley</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: c_bass16</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: nfoley</div><div class="ubbcode-body">One other thing I didn't like about the QD was the back blast was getting scope pretty dirty, and was worried overtime it could damage the finish on my nightforce. This should be a non-issue with the thread on. </div></div>
What the heck model is causing that issue? I've seen gas "leak" from the back of a can, but NEVER directly back toward the optics. Always directly perpendicular to the barrel. </div></div>
Gemtech HVT QD.
</div></div>
I run one of these on two different .308's, a .300 Blackout, and an M4. Never had gas get blown straight back. Which bi-lock mount are you using?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: nfoley</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: c_bass16</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: nfoley</div><div class="ubbcode-body">One other thing I didn't like about the QD was the back blast was getting scope pretty dirty, and was worried overtime it could damage the finish on my nightforce. This should be a non-issue with the thread on. </div></div>
What the heck model is causing that issue? I've seen gas "leak" from the back of a can, but NEVER directly back toward the optics. Always directly perpendicular to the barrel. </div></div>
Gemtech HVT QD.
</div></div>
I run one of these on two different .308's, a .300 Blackout, and an M4. Never had gas get blown straight back. Which bi-lock mount are you using?
Re: quick detach suppressor, bad idea??
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Yasherka</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: nfoley</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: c_bass16</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: nfoley</div><div class="ubbcode-body">One other thing I didn't like about the QD was the back blast was getting scope pretty dirty, and was worried overtime it could damage the finish on my nightforce. This should be a non-issue with the thread on. </div></div>
What the heck model is causing that issue? I've seen gas "leak" from the back of a can, but NEVER directly back toward the optics. Always directly perpendicular to the barrel. </div></div>
Gemtech HVT QD.
</div></div>
I run one of these on two different .308's, a .300 Blackout, and an M4. Never had gas get blown straight back. Which bi-lock mount are you using? </div></div>
The Bi-Lock, and it only gives gas one direction to go...back toward the shooter.
Film in in slow motion and I bet you notice it too.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Yasherka</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: nfoley</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: c_bass16</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: nfoley</div><div class="ubbcode-body">One other thing I didn't like about the QD was the back blast was getting scope pretty dirty, and was worried overtime it could damage the finish on my nightforce. This should be a non-issue with the thread on. </div></div>
What the heck model is causing that issue? I've seen gas "leak" from the back of a can, but NEVER directly back toward the optics. Always directly perpendicular to the barrel. </div></div>
Gemtech HVT QD.
</div></div>
I run one of these on two different .308's, a .300 Blackout, and an M4. Never had gas get blown straight back. Which bi-lock mount are you using? </div></div>
The Bi-Lock, and it only gives gas one direction to go...back toward the shooter.
Film in in slow motion and I bet you notice it too.
Re: quick detach suppressor, bad idea??
Jstarz,
Gemtech offered to switch to thread on for no cost when I explained the inconsistent first round to them. They have it now. Hope it fixes problem. When I get it back will let you know.
Yasherka,
I had it on two different rifle with two different mounts - one tensioning style (bolt gun) and one standard phantom style on an ar platform. Both would allow gas to be blown back toward shooter. I discovered this when looking at objective lenses of the scopes on the rifles.
Jstarz,
Gemtech offered to switch to thread on for no cost when I explained the inconsistent first round to them. They have it now. Hope it fixes problem. When I get it back will let you know.
Yasherka,
I had it on two different rifle with two different mounts - one tensioning style (bolt gun) and one standard phantom style on an ar platform. Both would allow gas to be blown back toward shooter. I discovered this when looking at objective lenses of the scopes on the rifles.
Re: quick detach suppressor, bad idea??
Hmm, I'll see if mine is doing the same thing next weekend. Up to this point I haven't felt anything on my face, nor have I noticed any build-up on my objective lenses. I'm doing a two-day shoot on the 17th and 18th so I should have something conclusive (at least for me) afterwards.
Hmm, I'll see if mine is doing the same thing next weekend. Up to this point I haven't felt anything on my face, nor have I noticed any build-up on my objective lenses. I'm doing a two-day shoot on the 17th and 18th so I should have something conclusive (at least for me) afterwards.
Re: quick detach suppressor, bad idea??
look at the SAS QD's in Ti
i wanted 1, but my local dealer was haveing issues, so i got the YHM QD Ti
look at the SAS QD's in Ti
i wanted 1, but my local dealer was haveing issues, so i got the YHM QD Ti
Re: quick detach suppressor, bad idea??
So, I went and fired five rounds this weekend specifically to see if my HVT-QD was allowing gas to come back through the bi-lock mount. Bottom line: it was.
I had a friend hold a paper towel so that it would lightly drape over the juncture of the mount and suppressor. During the firing, there was never any indication of an obvious leak.
However when looking at the towel afterwards, we noticed a very light but distinct gray discoloration of the area next to the mounting point.
I took a close look at the scope to try to discern any fouling on it but none were detectable. The rifle has had over 600 suppressed rounds put through it with this particular suppressor.
I suppose this is a systemic issue due to the design of the bi-lock. For me it's no great deal as it has not affected anything else.
So, I went and fired five rounds this weekend specifically to see if my HVT-QD was allowing gas to come back through the bi-lock mount. Bottom line: it was.
I had a friend hold a paper towel so that it would lightly drape over the juncture of the mount and suppressor. During the firing, there was never any indication of an obvious leak.
However when looking at the towel afterwards, we noticed a very light but distinct gray discoloration of the area next to the mounting point.
I took a close look at the scope to try to discern any fouling on it but none were detectable. The rifle has had over 600 suppressed rounds put through it with this particular suppressor.
I suppose this is a systemic issue due to the design of the bi-lock. For me it's no great deal as it has not affected anything else.
Re: quick detach suppressor, bad idea??
I put my money on a threaded suppressor, skipping the QD takes one more variable out of the equation (as far as precision goes). For those who's lives could depend on it - QD makes sense. I would drive it before you buy it if at all possible, and at least handle it in person before you buy.
I put my money on a threaded suppressor, skipping the QD takes one more variable out of the equation (as far as precision goes). For those who's lives could depend on it - QD makes sense. I would drive it before you buy it if at all possible, and at least handle it in person before you buy.
Re: quick detach suppressor, bad idea??
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: nfoley</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Jstarz,
Gemtech offered to switch to thread on for no cost when I explained the inconsistent first round to them. They have it now. Hope it fixes problem. When I get it back will let you know.
</div></div> I called and talked to Gemtech today and got quoted $100 to change my HVT to a thread on. I think I will do that and forget this QD mount. It is too unreliable for predicting first round hits.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: nfoley</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Jstarz,
Gemtech offered to switch to thread on for no cost when I explained the inconsistent first round to them. They have it now. Hope it fixes problem. When I get it back will let you know.
</div></div> I called and talked to Gemtech today and got quoted $100 to change my HVT to a thread on. I think I will do that and forget this QD mount. It is too unreliable for predicting first round hits.
Re: quick detach suppressor, bad idea??
http://thunderbeastarms.com/products/30ba
This brake/suppressor was used by the CD Steel Safari 2011 match winner.
http://thunderbeastarms.com/products/30ba
This brake/suppressor was used by the CD Steel Safari 2011 match winner.
Re: quick detach suppressor, bad idea??
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Pat98</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I put my money on a threaded suppressor, skipping the QD takes one more variable out of the equation (as far as precision goes). For those who's lives could depend on it - QD makes sense. I would drive it before you buy it if at all possible, and at least handle it in person before you buy. </div></div>
Here is a 600 yard group fired by a TRG-42 with a QD YHM can on it. A QD suppressor is not necessarily a hindrance to accurate shooting.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Pat98</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I put my money on a threaded suppressor, skipping the QD takes one more variable out of the equation (as far as precision goes). For those who's lives could depend on it - QD makes sense. I would drive it before you buy it if at all possible, and at least handle it in person before you buy. </div></div>
Here is a 600 yard group fired by a TRG-42 with a QD YHM can on it. A QD suppressor is not necessarily a hindrance to accurate shooting.
Re: quick detach suppressor, bad idea??
I was on the fence about a qd setup, might have to just shop around for a threaded set up.
Keep the qd-vs-threaded reviews coming!
I was on the fence about a qd setup, might have to just shop around for a threaded set up.
Keep the qd-vs-threaded reviews coming!
Re: quick detach suppressor, bad idea??
I don't have a precision rifle setup, just AR types, but I can't see how you could beat my YHM QD or definitively pin any accuracy quirks on whether or not it is QD vs threaded.
I use 1 suppressor on 5 or 6 different guns, so QD is the only way for me.
I don't have a precision rifle setup, just AR types, but I can't see how you could beat my YHM QD or definitively pin any accuracy quirks on whether or not it is QD vs threaded.
I use 1 suppressor on 5 or 6 different guns, so QD is the only way for me.
Re: quick detach suppressor, bad idea??
eracer, the wiggle that you have, is it in the turning of the unit, or is there some side to side wiggle?
I have (waiting on form 4) a couple of the AAC with the 51 tooth mount. Yesterday I had a chance to go by the dealer and attach the unit to the rifle. There was a little wiggle like it would really like to be one tooth tighter, but there was nothing in the side to side.
eracer, the wiggle that you have, is it in the turning of the unit, or is there some side to side wiggle?
I have (waiting on form 4) a couple of the AAC with the 51 tooth mount. Yesterday I had a chance to go by the dealer and attach the unit to the rifle. There was a little wiggle like it would really like to be one tooth tighter, but there was nothing in the side to side.
Re: quick detach suppressor, bad idea??
Thanks, I have not been able to duplicate it (not that good yet, but have been close). The point being: if I can put five rounds into that small a group at said distance WITH a "cheapie" QD suppressor, then a QD is not necessarily a detractor.
Thanks, I have not been able to duplicate it (not that good yet, but have been close). The point being: if I can put five rounds into that small a group at said distance WITH a "cheapie" QD suppressor, then a QD is not necessarily a detractor.
Re: quick detach suppressor, bad idea??
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JSTARSZ</div><div class="ubbcode-body">what the wiggle causes is inconsistent point of impacts (POI). I run an AAC M4/2000 and I have one mount that has a wiggle in it while the other three mounts do not. The mount with the wiggle throws rounds very inconsistent from one range trip to another. For AAC to say that it is not an issue makes me VERY skeptical based upon my experience. </div></div>
Yep. Stay away from the AAC 51 Tooth Mounts. I have a M4/2000 out of 4 mounts that I purchased only one locked up solid. Last time I went out my only good mount would not lock up solid.
In my personal experience, the wobble causes significant changes in POI. My AR that holds .75 MOA consistently cannot hold 4 MOA at 100 yards with a 51 Tooth mount that has a little wobble in it.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JSTARSZ</div><div class="ubbcode-body">what the wiggle causes is inconsistent point of impacts (POI). I run an AAC M4/2000 and I have one mount that has a wiggle in it while the other three mounts do not. The mount with the wiggle throws rounds very inconsistent from one range trip to another. For AAC to say that it is not an issue makes me VERY skeptical based upon my experience. </div></div>
Yep. Stay away from the AAC 51 Tooth Mounts. I have a M4/2000 out of 4 mounts that I purchased only one locked up solid. Last time I went out my only good mount would not lock up solid.
In my personal experience, the wobble causes significant changes in POI. My AR that holds .75 MOA consistently cannot hold 4 MOA at 100 yards with a 51 Tooth mount that has a little wobble in it.
Re: quick detach suppressor, bad idea??
Ive got several cans with the 51t mount and they are all fine. AAC overbores their holes and end caps to account for the slight wiggle. Some of my most accurate bolt action rifles wear AAC suppressors. I have a custom remington 700 that wear the 762SD with 51t mount and ive shot .5" groups at 300 yards.
I think the "wiggle" is a little to hyped up.
Ive got several cans with the 51t mount and they are all fine. AAC overbores their holes and end caps to account for the slight wiggle. Some of my most accurate bolt action rifles wear AAC suppressors. I have a custom remington 700 that wear the 762SD with 51t mount and ive shot .5" groups at 300 yards.
I think the "wiggle" is a little to hyped up.
Re: quick detach suppressor, bad idea??
KYS338 I think the "wiggle" is a little to hyped up. [/quote said:
Re: quick detach suppressor, bad idea??
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Icallem</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think I feel sick. </div></div>
If you are still waiting on Form 4s, see if you dealer can send your suppressors back to AAC and have them hand fit mounts to your suppressor.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Icallem</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think I feel sick. </div></div>
If you are still waiting on Form 4s, see if you dealer can send your suppressors back to AAC and have them hand fit mounts to your suppressor.
Re: quick detach suppressor, bad idea??
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KYS338</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ive got several cans with the 51t mount and they are all fine. AAC overbores their holes and end caps to account for the slight wiggle. Some of my most accurate bolt action rifles wear AAC suppressors. I have a custom remington 700 that wear the 762SD with 51t mount and ive shot .5" groups at 300 yards.
I think the "wiggle" is a little to hyped up. </div></div>
I never paid much attention to the wobble until I mounted a new 51 tooth mount on my AR that I use for varmint hunting. The first few rounds looked like a normal group and then the group opened up dramatically. I removed the suppressor and remounted it and had the same results. It was then that I noticed that the suppressor seemed to be mounting in-between teeth.
When I mounted the suppressor and tightened it there was no play in the mount/suppressor, but after being fired a few times the suppressor had backed off to the first tooth of the mount that it was locking onto.
I then decided to tighten the suppressor all the way and then manually back it onto the tightest tooth that it would hold to see if the rifle could produce descent groups. I fired a few additional 5 round groups and could not hold 4 MOA. Once I removed my M4/2000 the groups went back to normal.
At another range session, I removed this mount and put it on my Noveske barreled AR and had the same terrible results. I purchased 2 more additional mounts, thinking maybe I just had a bad mount, but both mounts yielded the same results.
I am glad to hear that your 51 Tooth mounts work for you. 3 of my 4 mounts are terrible and now my only good mount is not mounting up solid like it used to.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KYS338</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ive got several cans with the 51t mount and they are all fine. AAC overbores their holes and end caps to account for the slight wiggle. Some of my most accurate bolt action rifles wear AAC suppressors. I have a custom remington 700 that wear the 762SD with 51t mount and ive shot .5" groups at 300 yards.
I think the "wiggle" is a little to hyped up. </div></div>
I never paid much attention to the wobble until I mounted a new 51 tooth mount on my AR that I use for varmint hunting. The first few rounds looked like a normal group and then the group opened up dramatically. I removed the suppressor and remounted it and had the same results. It was then that I noticed that the suppressor seemed to be mounting in-between teeth.
When I mounted the suppressor and tightened it there was no play in the mount/suppressor, but after being fired a few times the suppressor had backed off to the first tooth of the mount that it was locking onto.
I then decided to tighten the suppressor all the way and then manually back it onto the tightest tooth that it would hold to see if the rifle could produce descent groups. I fired a few additional 5 round groups and could not hold 4 MOA. Once I removed my M4/2000 the groups went back to normal.
At another range session, I removed this mount and put it on my Noveske barreled AR and had the same terrible results. I purchased 2 more additional mounts, thinking maybe I just had a bad mount, but both mounts yielded the same results.
I am glad to hear that your 51 Tooth mounts work for you. 3 of my 4 mounts are terrible and now my only good mount is not mounting up solid like it used to.
Re: quick detach suppressor, bad idea??
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Icallem</div><div class="ubbcode-body">eracer, the wiggle that you have, is it in the turning of the unit, or is there some side to side wiggle?
I have (waiting on form 4) a couple of the AAC with the 51 tooth mount. Yesterday I had a chance to go by the dealer and attach the unit to the rifle. There was a little wiggle like it would really like to be one tooth tighter, but there was nothing in the side to side. </div></div>It's exactly as you described. I can't 'feel' any side-to-side, but I know it's there.
I think of it like this: If you tighten a nut onto a bolt, and you don't torque it at all, there MUST be some side-to-side wiggle, because there is a dimensional difference in the threads of the nut and the threads of the bolt. Has to be.
Having said all that, my Grendel seems to shoot better groups with the can than it does without it. I plan to play around with it to see how repeatable the POI shift is.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Icallem</div><div class="ubbcode-body">eracer, the wiggle that you have, is it in the turning of the unit, or is there some side to side wiggle?
I have (waiting on form 4) a couple of the AAC with the 51 tooth mount. Yesterday I had a chance to go by the dealer and attach the unit to the rifle. There was a little wiggle like it would really like to be one tooth tighter, but there was nothing in the side to side. </div></div>It's exactly as you described. I can't 'feel' any side-to-side, but I know it's there.
I think of it like this: If you tighten a nut onto a bolt, and you don't torque it at all, there MUST be some side-to-side wiggle, because there is a dimensional difference in the threads of the nut and the threads of the bolt. Has to be.
Having said all that, my Grendel seems to shoot better groups with the can than it does without it. I plan to play around with it to see how repeatable the POI shift is.
Similar threads
