Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No. Best other option is the area419 system. That’s what I use on my ultra 7 and 9Are there any muzzle brakes that made for an ultra 7 besides the Thunderbeast brake?
You were definitely doing something wrong.Why use anything else? The TBAC brakes are superb in both quality and recoil reduction.
The Area 419 system is fucking trash. I ordered some mounts and ditched it without even putting a couple hundred rounds through it on a few rifles. Took a can that has zero POI shift ever with TBAC mounts and gave it incredibly unpredictable POI shifts. Area 419 makes some good products, but that ain’t one of them.
You were definitely doing something wrong.
Took a can that has zero POI shift ever with TBAC mounts and gave it incredibly unpredictable POI shifts.
Are you saying with the can on, off, or anytime you make a switch? No question changing between the can and the brake the POI shifts, but I’ve never noticed variable shifts.
I see about the same. Very predictable on 300wm, 300prc, 6.5prc, 6cm.Interesting.
I’m going to test that closer. I get about .1 mil vertical between the can and brake, but I’ve never done a same session multiple swap between the two. Gonna try that. (Got me second guessing selling the TBAC brakes that came with my cans!)
You’re the first report I've seen of that. I was using that system long before I started selling it for my customer rifle builds and suppressor sales. Nothing but smiles.Definitely was not and definitely know others who have had the same experience with it.
Ive tested the shit out of this system. Including screwing multiple cans onto a freshly cut muzzle thread while the barrel is still in the lathe, to check runout at the end of the can with a test indicator.Interesting.
I’m going to test that closer. I get about .1 mil vertical between the can and brake, but I’ve never done a same session multiple swap between the two. Gonna try that. (Got me second guessing selling the TBAC brakes that came with my cans!)
Other than the Area 419, no. This is why I don't own a TBAC can. If they would just do like the rest of the industry and use HUB (1.375x24 threads) then you could use any mount you wanted...And I'm heavily invested in the Dead Air KeyMo/KeyMount system. But TBAC wants to be proprietary. So, until they fix that, TBAC is a no-go for me.Are there any muzzle brakes that made for an ultra 7 besides the Thunderbeast brake?
I understand all that, I just feel that it would open up your sales a lot more to other folks who are already invested in other mounting solutions if you ran HUB...Plus, you would still be able to make your own CB style mounts that fit into the back of the cans, they would just thread-in with the 1.375x24 threads. I know that personally, I would love to have a TBAC can that would accept KeyMo. It would be a great precision rifle/DMR can & mount setup, being that the KeyMo mount is also proven to be extremely tough and repeatable POI. I think that would be really cool. Once again, just thinking my thoughts out loud...I'm not 100% sure on the exact dates of everyone else's stuff, but I am pretty sure the CB brake system predates the other mounts referenced above.
Granted, that might not change the precise application of the word proprietary...
However, I think it does affect the implication -- that I read into it anyway -- that we chose to be proprietary in spite of good, accurate and repeatable suppressor mounting systems being on the market. That wasn't true at the time.
From another aspect, if we control the mounts and the suppressors, we can "guarantee" more, and there is very little debugging (or worse, finger pointing) necessary, when a customer has a problem. This thread provides an example of that uncertainty. In the interest of full disclosure, besides redneckbmxer24, I have spoken to one or two other shooters who had a similar problem with the 419 adapters. (Which, admittedly, if they have sold a lot of them, means that very very few have problems.)
We aren't dead set against incorporating a standard back-end to some of our cans at some point. However, taking the Gen 2 Ultras as an example, doing so would only add weight and more moving parts to a design that is at a very high level of optimization.
No one said keymo. You called the Area419 system trash above and that is wrong.
Why don’t you go back and read that post directly above mine that you quoted there champ...
Yes the Area 419 system sucks. Sorry not sorry.
My apologies, I did not see there was hidden content from an ignore member on the page and that was one of them.
Keymo is not as repeatable. I agree with you, leave that on non precision rifles (which is my setup - keymo on short stuff, Area419 on precision stuff)
So agree on keymo, disagree on A419.
I'm sure there is more than one person that can't shoot no matter the system.Glad it works for you, hi points work for some people too. I’m not the only one who has had issues with the system though.
I'm sure there is more than one person that can't shoot no matter the system.
Bless your heart. Have a good day.So simply changing the mounting system from one to another suddenly makes someone not be able to shoot straight... I don’t think I need to point out how stupid that’s sounds.
I understand all that, I just feel that it would open up your sales a lot more to other folks who are already invested in other mounting solutions if you ran HUB...Plus, you would still be able to make your own CB style mounts that fit into the back of the cans, they would just thread-in with the 1.375x24 threads. I know that personally, I would love to have a TBAC can that would accept KeyMo. It would be a great precision rifle/DMR can & mount setup, being that the KeyMo mount is also proven to be extremely tough and repeatable POI. I think that would be really cool. Once again, just thinking my thoughts out loud...
We aren't dead set against incorporating a standard back-end to some of our cans at some point. However, taking the Gen 2 Ultras as an example, doing so would only add weight and more moving parts to a design that is at a very high level of optimization.
TBAC sells 100% of their manufacturing capacity. What would opening "up your sales a lot more" accomplish?
I often wonder if the people asking for the universal threads understand what they're asking.
I dont doubt that you want a keymo on the back of a tbac, but I dont think most do. Its long and heavy.I understand all that, I just feel that it would open up your sales a lot more to other folks who are already invested in other mounting solutions if you ran HUB...Plus, you would still be able to make your own CB style mounts that fit into the back of the cans, they would just thread-in with the 1.375x24 threads. I know that personally, I would love to have a TBAC can that would accept KeyMo. It would be a great precision rifle/DMR can & mount setup, being that the KeyMo mount is also proven to be extremely tough and repeatable POI. I think that would be really cool. Once again, just thinking my thoughts out loud...
I know exactly what I’m asking.TBAC sells 100% of their manufacturing capacity. What would opening "up your sales a lot more" accomplish?
I often wonder if the people asking for the universal threads understand what they're asking.
Everyone has an opinion and they’re entitled to it…Even if you don’t agree. I like the KeyMo setup, and the muzzle brakes. To each, their own.I dont doubt that you want a keymo on the back of a tbac, but I dont think most do. Its long and heavy.
View attachment 7709663View attachment 7709664
Nothing I said implied anything different.Everyone has an opinion and they’re entitled to it…Even if you don’t agree. I like the KeyMo setup, and the muzzle brakes. To each, their own.
Assuming I'm discounting them, because I think their proprietary mounting system is not ideal for shooters who are heavily invested in mounts and suppressors from other brands, makes you sound like an elitist. And assuming the fact that because some people don't like their mounts means that they must not want to run their cans, is also stupid.I have both the KeyMo setup and several TBAC cans. Not once did I ever think to myself that TBAC should be compatible for every other Tom Dick and Mary manufacturer out there. I bought the TBAC cans for a reason, for their precision. If you are discounting TBAC because it doesn't fit a certain mount, you are concerned about the wrong thing.
We could make less accurate cans, but sell more of them!TBAC sells 100% of their manufacturing capacity. What would opening "up your sales a lot more" accomplish?
We could make less accurate cans, but sell more of them!
5 actually... 4 Dead Air cans (Nomad-LT, Mask HD, and 2 Sandman-S cans), and a Rugged Obsidian 45.It's easy for these threads (pardon the pun) to get antagonistic. There isn't really a need for them to be.
And all joking aside:
MudRunner2005,
You already have a can or two, if I am remembering your prior posts correctly. What I've found is that I almost always end up dedicating one can to one right, or a setup very similar to that. If you're looking for an excuse to get a TBAC can, but have a hard time rationalizing it due to wanting to be able to use it on "everything" (and yeah, getting 10 of any brake or mount is not going to be cheap), then I'd offer this idea. Pick one rifle where you really would take advantage of the repeatability and light weight of an Ultra, and give it a try.
We do understand the appeal of a standard back-end, however, it doesn't make sense for us to offer in a highly refined design like the Ultra as it would undermine some of its basic value. That doesn't mean we'll never make one, but it would have to be an application where it doesn't compromise the "purpose" of the design.
Hope this helps
And you should go choke on a big bag of dicks..."Please spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to make a silencer that allows me to buy your competitors products even though I won't buy it anyway because you're not my Instagram hero".
It's sound business advice, you should totally listen to that guy.
I think what actually happened is that some other people showed up with personal experience with some of the other mounts in question and gave their opinion. I didn't come in this thread to get in an argument about specific mounts-- but just to give input as to why we don't have a 1.375 back end on the Ultras.just seems like a brand/marketing bias type thing saying that your mount is superior in repeatability
They are all CB cans. Some just have a DT insert installed with permanent loctite. 90% or so of all cans we sell are CB/BA/SR, as opposed to DT.but at this point, I would have to get a 5/8x24 DT can, and those are nearly impossible to find these days.
Absolutely... Hell, back then just about ALL the QD setups were junk. Looking back, we all see how well the AAC and Surefire mounts aged...I think what actually happened is that some other people showed up with personal experience with some of the other mounts in question and gave their opinion. I didn't come in this thread to get in an argument about specific mounts-- but just to give input as to why we don't have a 1.375 back end on the Ultras.
If you're referring to my joke post (the one with the 6 smileys), then, yeah, having another interface that can come loose and accepts "any" device on the back is not going to be good for accuracy.
What we know is that our mounts are GTG. There are other mounts on the market that are also GTG. There are also mounts that harm accuracy/repeatability. If we go back about 12 years, it was a safe assumption at that time that ANY QD MOUNT would harm the accuracy, because almost all of them did. Given this history, from a precision rifle point of view, I personally would not assume amount is accurate/repeatable until it's been proven so.
They are all CB cans. Some just have a DT insert installed with permanent loctite. 90% or so of all cans we sell are CB/BA/SR, as opposed to DT.
Gotcha. I didn't know there was a change. I just remembered the older models that were fully-welded.With the Ultras (ca 2015 iirc), we went to a 17-4 ionbonded thread insert.