Why is it the consensus that direct threads are the thing for precision rifle cans? What is it that makes people think they are more accurate?
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Suppressors Direct thread cans
- Thread starter SilencercoJames
- Start date
My first thought would be consistency. Threading a suppressor on and leaving it there invites the fewest possible variables as long as the threading etc is up to par.
Direct thread is the most conservative, safest (fewest variables) way to do it. You do not have to worry about the threading on a QD adapter, no issue on adapter being loose, no possible adapter timing or manufacturing issues, no possible issues of QD adapter and suppressor interface.
Not saying these are problem areas necessarily, BUT according to Mr. Murphy, esteemed pain in the ass, they COULD be.
I think that there is something extra that can foul up or be different on the QD setup lends bias towards the simpler, often full time thread on can.
Older QD setups were not exactly stellar… So I am sure that plays a part as well in the thinking.
Direct thread is the most conservative, safest (fewest variables) way to do it. You do not have to worry about the threading on a QD adapter, no issue on adapter being loose, no possible adapter timing or manufacturing issues, no possible issues of QD adapter and suppressor interface.
Not saying these are problem areas necessarily, BUT according to Mr. Murphy, esteemed pain in the ass, they COULD be.
I think that there is something extra that can foul up or be different on the QD setup lends bias towards the simpler, often full time thread on can.
Older QD setups were not exactly stellar… So I am sure that plays a part as well in the thinking.
Any of us that have had the JOY of using a AAC mount know that they can be prone to backing off which could cause an additional variable in the works. Since AAC had been one of the larger players in the game, most people felt if they can't get it right, nobody can.
I hope the Silencerco Trifecta series of mounts proves us all wrong.
I'm having the same dilemma. I have a QD phantom for my 308. It shoots good, but the little wiggle that it has"very small" had me wanting a direct thread so I can get the wiggle out of my mind. Just as I started looking, the spec war comes out and looks very impressive with metering and lock up. Now I can't decide between a spec war and thunder beast. I need to get it figured out quick, I only want one more and and thanks to swr I can't make up my mind, I just don't want to be thinking" would it shoot tighter with direct thread"? If I had the money I'd say screw it and get both.
Not all mounts are created equal... I think poor mounting systems allow problems leading to less accuracy and these mounts have led to the general concensus that direct thread will be more accurate. I would not condemn all mounting systems as being less accurate because of a few...
Do people feel like a 30BA will be less accurate than 30P-1? I keep thinking I even remember Zak saying that this isn't true. I'm sure he will add something to the discussion later.
Do people feel like a 30BA will be less accurate than 30P-1? I keep thinking I even remember Zak saying that this isn't true. I'm sure he will add something to the discussion later.
Should be noted that the TBAC BA system isn't QD...therefore it uses similar threads as a direct thread rig. Just has two sets, one from the brake to the bbl, one from the can to the brake. In the grand scheme of things this shouldn't cause degradation in accuracy so long as its kept snug, same as any other direct thread vs a QD setup that may ratchet...
Right, the 30BA is as repeatable and accurate as our direct-thread cans. Although it's a "mount", it is of the "Thread Over Muzzle Brake" (TOMB) type. If you can make an accurate direct-thread can, then it's hard to screw up a TOMB mount since it's still a thread mount; it just connects to the brake and abuts to its shoulder instead of the barrel threads and shoulder.
Another aspect is that direct thread does not guarantee repeatability and accuracy. It's possible to build a baffle stack that harms accuracy, have a construction or manufacturing method that harms accuracy, and even to screw up the rear of the can so the threads aren't repeatable. Good precision rifle cans have to get "everything" right to be accurate: baffle design, manufacturing, "mount system", etc.
Historically or statistically, "QD" style mounts have shown problem with accuracy. That is not to say "all QD mounts will harm accuracy", but the reason we're having this discussion in the first place is that QD mounts have caused a lot of repeatability and accuracy problems for people who want rifle accuracy.
Another aspect is that direct thread does not guarantee repeatability and accuracy. It's possible to build a baffle stack that harms accuracy, have a construction or manufacturing method that harms accuracy, and even to screw up the rear of the can so the threads aren't repeatable. Good precision rifle cans have to get "everything" right to be accurate: baffle design, manufacturing, "mount system", etc.
Historically or statistically, "QD" style mounts have shown problem with accuracy. That is not to say "all QD mounts will harm accuracy", but the reason we're having this discussion in the first place is that QD mounts have caused a lot of repeatability and accuracy problems for people who want rifle accuracy.
So here is the real deal with direct thread vs QD. The only real benefit you get from a direct thread vs a GOOD QD is weight. Generally you can make a can lighter without a muzzle device for a mount.
When you mount to a taper, you get a more consistent lock up and repeatable indexing. The taper will act as a retaining system and the can will stay locked in place. If you can figure out how to put that taper/gas seal infront of the threads you will stop 90% of the gas from reaching the threads and your cans threads will stay clean which is actually a big deal.
With a QD system you get a lot more versatility also.
There are benefits to both, I would just like to clear up the misconceptions caused by the 51t mount though. We work hard to make sure none of our mounts loosen or back off and they are all repeatable and WILL NOT be the cause for accuracy problems
When you mount to a taper, you get a more consistent lock up and repeatable indexing. The taper will act as a retaining system and the can will stay locked in place. If you can figure out how to put that taper/gas seal infront of the threads you will stop 90% of the gas from reaching the threads and your cans threads will stay clean which is actually a big deal.
With a QD system you get a lot more versatility also.
There are benefits to both, I would just like to clear up the misconceptions caused by the 51t mount though. We work hard to make sure none of our mounts loosen or back off and they are all repeatable and WILL NOT be the cause for accuracy problems
It's a simple stack up of tolerance.
A quick change mount is convienent but adds another layer of maintaining a concentric, perpendicular and repeatable mount vs. using a direct thread can fitted directly to the barrel threads.
A quick change mount is convienent but adds another layer of maintaining a concentric, perpendicular and repeatable mount vs. using a direct thread can fitted directly to the barrel threads.
I think Zak hit it on the head.
People know a direct thread will at least mount consistently. Granted there are other variables in making an accurate can, but that can be crossed off the list.
Unfortunately, there have been a couple of QD mounts that aren't so stellar, and the can will not mount repeatably and/or securely. I've slowed down a video of a 762-SDN on a bump fired 5.45 SBR that had deflection bad enough during bump fire that the human eye can see it.
When one of the big players botches it so bad, everyone else suffers. When you are stacking up to AAC, you have a lot to overcome to convince the general public that your system will solve the issues they have seen. It an be done, but it will take solid proof and more than one source to do it.
I bought a TOMB style can, won't say who from. Speaking from personal experience, I knew that I didn't have to put any more work into researching a QD setup to determine how solid the mount was to know it would be repeatable and acceptable. From my standpoint as a consumer: until my preconceived notions of how a QD can locks up, it is easier for me to do a direct thread or a TOMB style can than it is to research a specific QD mount. I think that until the stigma of QD mounts is cleared, SIGNIFICANT marketing power would have to be poured into a QD product for me to notice it, believe in it, and spend money on it instead of going with a known good approach for accuracy since both are offered readily.
I have stamps in on a couple of QD type products, but they aren't for my accuracy rigs. They are for other purposes.
Hope this doesn't come across as confrontational. Just telling you what a 'slightly above average' researcher thinks when looking for a new can. Maybe it can help you with your marketing strategy, or other areas to help cure the stigma of the QD can.
People know a direct thread will at least mount consistently. Granted there are other variables in making an accurate can, but that can be crossed off the list.
Unfortunately, there have been a couple of QD mounts that aren't so stellar, and the can will not mount repeatably and/or securely. I've slowed down a video of a 762-SDN on a bump fired 5.45 SBR that had deflection bad enough during bump fire that the human eye can see it.
When one of the big players botches it so bad, everyone else suffers. When you are stacking up to AAC, you have a lot to overcome to convince the general public that your system will solve the issues they have seen. It an be done, but it will take solid proof and more than one source to do it.
I bought a TOMB style can, won't say who from. Speaking from personal experience, I knew that I didn't have to put any more work into researching a QD setup to determine how solid the mount was to know it would be repeatable and acceptable. From my standpoint as a consumer: until my preconceived notions of how a QD can locks up, it is easier for me to do a direct thread or a TOMB style can than it is to research a specific QD mount. I think that until the stigma of QD mounts is cleared, SIGNIFICANT marketing power would have to be poured into a QD product for me to notice it, believe in it, and spend money on it instead of going with a known good approach for accuracy since both are offered readily.
I have stamps in on a couple of QD type products, but they aren't for my accuracy rigs. They are for other purposes.
Hope this doesn't come across as confrontational. Just telling you what a 'slightly above average' researcher thinks when looking for a new can. Maybe it can help you with your marketing strategy, or other areas to help cure the stigma of the QD can.
Stacking tolerances is a non issue for us. Anyone who really understands machining could make a flash hider/muzzle brake mount without any problems. Then all you need to worry about is the muzzle threads and the threads and or taper inside the can. Which is the same thing as a direct thread.
To me it doesnt seem as though you are asking a question even though you phrased it as one. The statement you made seems more based around supporting the Silencerco 51t QD design. I dont think there is anything wrong with that whatsoever but lets just call it what it is.
I think the easiest and honest answer is this. The consensus is what it is primarily due to current and historical real world results of accuracy and consistent poi shift between QD and direct thread cans. I may have missed it but I havent seen too many test results from a 3rd party (i.e. non manufacturer or manufacturer rep) in which cans were compared from an accuracy perspective where a QD can out performed a quality, known performer direct thread can. Im guessing that this is the real reason you see most people supporting the direct thread cans for accuracy. With that being said, I think you will find that most people here would agree that the TBAC's are probably the most accurate/precise can on the market that all else are compared against.
I think the easiest and honest answer is this. The consensus is what it is primarily due to current and historical real world results of accuracy and consistent poi shift between QD and direct thread cans. I may have missed it but I havent seen too many test results from a 3rd party (i.e. non manufacturer or manufacturer rep) in which cans were compared from an accuracy perspective where a QD can out performed a quality, known performer direct thread can. Im guessing that this is the real reason you see most people supporting the direct thread cans for accuracy. With that being said, I think you will find that most people here would agree that the TBAC's are probably the most accurate/precise can on the market that all else are compared against.
This is not a plug for our 51T mount at all, nor was this set out to be an argument. I am legitimately wondering why everyone thinks direct thread cans are more accurate. As far as our mounts are concerned they are not. You actually will get just as reliable repeatable mounting with our QD mounts. There has been a lot of discussion about people shying away from cans because they are QD and people are worrying about the repeatability. I want to inform people that they need not shy away.
Understand completely. Tone and direction are a bit tough to tell via online text. I support your cans and actually have a few. I think you may get a bit further with gaining customer support by posting a vid for all to see and then there is no more room for debate. You can then refer users to the video evidence vs continually getting challenged by those that "feel" differently about the design. Saying something and proving something via evidential support have quite different results. Some intended and some not so much. Hopefully that makes sense.
Last edited:
