Suppressors KAC NT4 vs. YHM SS Phantom

[bsp212]

I know this is kind of an apples to oranges comparison, but what are your opinions?

Is the KAC worth the extra money?

Rifle will be an LMT 10.5" in 5.56 and will see range use only and no full auto use.

There isn't much difference in weight and performance on paper and I've shot a YHM so I know what to expect from it.

Thanks,
bsp212

 

[JJones75]

Re: KAC NT4 vs. YHM SS Phantom

The KAC is a piece of junk in my oppinion , it doesen't make a 14.5" or 10.5" ear safe at all , it barely brings the concussion down to a tollerable level.

Their are alot better cans out their for that money

 

[skinney_7]

Re: KAC NT4 vs. YHM SS Phantom

never shot a knights but i know, yhm makes some gooood cans, @ a gooood price!

 

[christian77]

Re: KAC NT4 vs. YHM SS Phantom

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JJones75</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The KAC is a piece of junk in my oppinion , it doesen't make a 14.5" or 10.5" ear safe at all , it barely brings the concussion down to a tollerable level.

Their are alot better cans out their for that money</div></div>
+10000000

 

[bachelorjack]

Re: KAC NT4 vs. YHM SS Phantom

The KAC NT4 sucks. Like those girls your buddies pass around in the barracks on the weekends. Except not in a good way.

If you are okay with the YHM suppressors get their .30cal one and use it on everything. Far better idea than what you currently have planned.

 

[bsp212]

Re: KAC NT4 vs. YHM SS Phantom

Thanks for the replies. I will more than likely go with the YHM, its hard to pass up for the money.

 

[CS95]

Re: KAC NT4 vs. YHM SS Phantom

The NT4 is definetly not a piece of junk,far from it actually.Yes it is not the quietest can,but it is argueably the toughest 223 can out there.It was not designed to be the quietest.I was designed to handle the everyday rigors of war with operators that dont understand that guns and silencers are not made to run full auto non-stop for god knows how long. The can it self has a .310 bore compared to yhm's .250 at the blast baffle and ends up some where around .270 at the muzzle end.

Is the nt4 overpriced IMO yes.Is the yhm a great deal for what you get yes. If QD was not a concern I would go with the HTG Aris as it is quieter than either of these cans and is not much more in price over the yhm.

 

[bachelorjack]

Re: KAC NT4 vs. YHM SS Phantom

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sp95</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The NT4 is definetly not a piece of junk,far from it actually.Yes it is not the quietest can,but it is argueably the toughest 223 can out there.It was not designed to be the quietest.I was designed to handle the everyday rigors of war with operators that dont understand that guns and silencers are not made to run full auto non-stop for god knows how long. The can it self has a .310 bore compared to yhm's .250 at the blast baffle and ends up some where around .270 at the muzzle end.

Is the nt4 overpriced IMO yes.Is the yhm a great deal for what you get yes. If QD was not a concern I would go with the HTG Aris as it is quieter than either of these cans and is not much more in price over the yhm. </div></div>

Have you had the NT4 or any knights suppressor issued to you for use in theatre? Or is this just your opinion from the couch?

I can tell you the knights suppressor is garbage and I've been exposed to quite a lot of them. I imagine the same goes for doorkicker, who also posted his hard earned opinion.....

I'm sure it is a lovely couch.

 

[JJones75]

Re: KAC NT4 vs. YHM SS Phantom

Im lucky enough to get to "play" with some Navy guys who were issued the NT4's for their 10.5" M4's , they all hated the , the mount fitting sucked (requiring the oversized bore), they added alot of length to the weapon , heavy and diden't provide much noise reduction. They are durable i will give that , i saw one take 300 rounds from a 249 and hold together , so on an already big heavy gun yea the slight noise reduction is nice but for a short patrol gun , no

The are a pretty good flash suppressor though!

in my oppinion their are MUCH better cans out their for the money

 

[Bacarrat]

Re: KAC NT4 vs. YHM SS Phantom

As with most if not all of Knights Armament products, they are overpriced and way overhyped. I have heard the NT4 on several occasions and they are by far one of the loudest suppressors on the market.

And I don't understand the toughest can comments It's a tube with threads in it. There are no moving parts involved.

 

[Conqueror]

Re: KAC NT4 vs. YHM SS Phantom

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bacarrat</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And I don't understand the toughest can comments It's a tube with threads in it. There are no moving parts involved. </div></div>
That's really dumb. So if I made a 5.56 silencer from 0.065" thick aluminum (hey, it's a tube with threads, no moving parts!) you would think it's equally tough as a silencer made from two pounds of inconel? A silencer's toughness has nothing to do with whether it has moving parts (ps, yes, the KAC does have moving parts).

 

[christian77]

Re: KAC NT4 vs. YHM SS Phantom

Only moving part that I am aware of on it, is the stupid "horseshoe" attachment piece that sucks anyways.

Personally I equate the KAC suppressor to screwing a 6 D-cell maglight on the end of your M4/MK18.

I saw a real nice baffle strike through one last year in the 'Ghan.

I'll second Bachelor Jack on it being Garbage.

 

[CS95]

Re: KAC NT4 vs. YHM SS Phantom

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BachelorJack</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sp95</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The NT4 is definetly not a piece of junk,far from it actually.Yes it is not the quietest can,but it is argueably the toughest 223 can out there.It was not designed to be the quietest.I was designed to handle the everyday rigors of war with operators that dont understand that guns and silencers are not made to run full auto non-stop for god knows how long. The can it self has a .310 bore compared to yhm's .250 at the blast baffle and ends up some where around .270 at the muzzle end.

Is the nt4 overpriced IMO yes.Is the yhm a great deal for what you get yes. If QD was not a concern I would go with the HTG Aris as it is quieter than either of these cans and is not much more in price over the yhm. </div></div>

Have you had the NT4 or any knights suppressor issued to you for use in theatre? Or is this just your opinion from the couch?

I can tell you the knights suppressor is garbage and I've been exposed to quite a lot of them. I imagine the same goes for doorkicker, who also posted his hard earned opinion.....

I'm sure it is a lovely couch. </div></div>Well seeing as how I am an 01/03and have been for 13 years(07/02 applied for)So yes I have handled a few.So why dont I buy you a plane ticket up here so you can come sit your smart ass down on my couch and we will have a friendly discussion about silencers and then shake hands thrown down some JD and shoot a shit load of my cans and ammo on my range which is at my house,but since I bought the ticket and JD,you have to buy a can from me and treat us to the local titty club.Unless of course you are the one with the comfortable couch.

By the way I stand by my opinion and it is exactly what I tell customers when they want one. No they are not quiet(like I said),yes they are tough as nails ,like I said.One thing I did leave out is that I would recommend the yhm over the knights for obvious reasons like cost,quieter,profit margin,well built,but the tight bore does worry me a little.

By the way if you are enlisted or are a veteran THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE and that goes to all of you soldiers THANK YOU.

 

[CS95]

Re: KAC NT4 vs. YHM SS Phantom

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JJones75</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
in my oppinion their are MUCH better cans out their for the money </div></div>+1

 

[Bacarrat]

Re: KAC NT4 vs. YHM SS Phantom

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Conqueror</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bacarrat</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And I don't understand the toughest can comments It's a tube with threads in it. There are no moving parts involved. </div></div>
That's really dumb. So if I made a 5.56 silencer from 0.065" thick aluminum (hey, it's a tube with threads, no moving parts!) you would think it's equally tough as a silencer made from two pounds of inconel? A silencer's toughness has nothing to do with whether it has moving parts (ps, yes, the KAC does have moving parts). </div></div>

I would like to see you make a aluminum 5.56 can. Just shoot it by yourself...

There are no 5.56 cans that I know of that is totally made out of aluminum. All are made out of some kind of steel alloy. How many of them have you seen fail... other then getting hit by a bullet or the welds failing?

 

[JJones75]

Re: KAC NT4 vs. YHM SS Phantom

I have made 2 from Aluminum as well a 1 , 30 cal can , both work finebut they are dedicated bolt gun suppressors though , and their not that thick , .100" wall , 7068 aluminum , the only steel I used was a SS insert for the barrel mount that is 1"x 16TPI OD and 5/8"x24 TPI ID

 

[brad b]

Re: KAC NT4 vs. YHM SS Phantom

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bacarrat</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Conqueror</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bacarrat</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And I don't understand the toughest can comments It's a tube with threads in it. There are no moving parts involved. </div></div>
That's really dumb. So if I made a 5.56 silencer from 0.065" thick aluminum (hey, it's a tube with threads, no moving parts!) you would think it's equally tough as a silencer made from two pounds of inconel? A silencer's toughness has nothing to do with whether it has moving parts (ps, yes, the KAC does have moving parts). </div></div>

I would like to see you make a aluminum 5.56 can. Just shoot it by yourself...

There are no 5.56 cans that I know of that is totally made out of aluminum. All are made out of some kind of steel alloy. How many of them have you seen fail... other then getting hit by a bullet or the welds failing? </div></div>

On an ar15 zero, but on an m4/m16/mk18 several. I have seen them glow in the daylight. The problem is the heat involved in FA fire and the errosion of the baffles caused by this. Saying that there is no difference in the "toughness" is pretty naive. The durability comes from the design and materials used. Good material such as inconel is expensive.

 

[JJones75]

Re: KAC NT4 vs. YHM SS Phantom

Thats right some meterials get very weak very fast at high temps like aluminum others not so much.

If you could make a can entirely from 718 Inconell that was fully welded I don't think you could get it hot enough on any weapon to blow it up , 304 SS yes , Titanium yes , 316 SS yes and certainly any make of aluminum.

The trouble is that Inconell is very expensive and a bitch to machine where the better grades of SS like 316 are not as bad to machine or cost that much and offer reasonable strength to weight ratio at high temps.

I built a can thats made from A286 alloy with a 718 Inconell blast baffle , its built heavy and fully welded (9"long 1.5" OD and weighs 46 ounces), I'd like to have sombody run several hundred round through it on a belt fed weapon to because , its heavier built and made from better material that ANY suppressor commercialy available I could have made it much lighter but it was one of my first and I was leaning on the side of caution with tube wall thickness.

ANYWAY , I'm not sure why the NT4 is such a loud can , their baffles are a well proven desgine , maybe due to low internal volume.

 

[bachelorjack]

Re: KAC NT4 vs. YHM SS Phantom

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sp95</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well seeing as how I am an 01/03and have been for 13 years(07/02 applied for)So yes I have handled a few.So why dont I buy you a plane ticket up here so you can come sit your smart ass down on my couch and we will have a friendly discussion about silencers and then shake hands thrown down some JD and shoot a shit load of my cans and ammo on my range which is at my house,but since I bought the ticket and JD,you have to buy a can from me and treat us to the local titty club.Unless of course you are the one with the comfortable couch.
</div></div>

Deal. Done and Done. I'll buy a can if you buy me a ticket. The only reason I work is to have money for the strip club. So, if your offer is legit, I'd be happy to take you up on it.

However if you are going to be in GA for the silencertests shoot next weekend, I can go ahead and prepay the titty bar part. Dress nice, and be ready for the time of your life.

Let me know either way.

 

[HPLLC]

Re: KAC NT4 vs. YHM SS Phantom

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: doorkicker</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Only moving part that I am aware of on it, is the stupid "horseshoe" attachment piece that sucks anyways.

Personally I equate the KAC suppressor to screwing a 6 D-cell maglight on the end of your M4/MK18.

I saw a real nice baffle strike through one last year in the 'Ghan.

I'll second Bachelor Jack on it being Garbage. </div></div>

That's being really harsh on the M4QD. When you compare it to something considered very light in the suppressor world such as the M42000 from AAC, that's a 17.1 ounce silencer with a 3.7 ounce blackout FH mount. That's 20.8 ounces. The M4QD with it's flash hider is 24ounces. The weight difference is just 3.2 ounces. That's not as huge as it sounds.

The newer SSNT4 models are running probably .0005" (that's ten thousandths) of play between flash hider and mount. The older ones were much worse but the current crop fit really nice in order to meet the 1.5MOA I believe threshold for POI shift that the SOPMOD Block II contract specifies.

I've heard them on the range and yes they do ring ears very lightly, but 28-29DB sound reduction is not low sound reduction. These silencers are eliminating most of the sound and mitigating nearly all of the hearing damage, and they are designed for combat- guys are normally wearing something on their ears anyway for door breaching and flash bangs beit loose ear plugs or surefire plugs or electronic ear pro which is often the case anymore.

Most guys use these for door kicking with 10.5's just so they dont stun everyone when they pull the trigger on the 10.5 in a small room where that is similar to being flash banged.

If you saw a baffle strike with an M4QD you saw something enormously rare. Most of these silencers contrary to instructions are mounted with crush washers by armorers in the military who are basically MORONS. They come with washer shims that guarantees parallelism is maintained for both POI shift minimization and safety from strikes. When the crush washer is used (as they always are) that is no longer the case and possibility for all manner of stupid shit is opened up.

Inconel of course is a value added option. The material is approximately three times the strength of stainless steel and holds strength to 400F hotter than stainless steel. It is also more wear resistant and that applies to the apertures of each baffle. Durability is important for the military and the M4QD is durable.

I'm sure if KAC shrunk the bore to .241 tapered to .305 or whatever the YHM is, it would probably be a quieter silencer than YHM. You'd probably see 32Db reduction out of the thing at that point. But you would lose the ability to pass marginally stable projectiles after more than 120 rounds of burst fire, and a lot of silencers would start showing up with extra holes. KAC knows the silencer business and this isn't happening because they built a good product.

 

[JJones75]

Re: KAC NT4 vs. YHM SS Phantom

i found the ballance if the M4 to be fairly differant with the NT4 as opposed to the AAC M4-2000.

What material is Knight using thats so much stronger that SS? this is news to me

 

[HPLLC]

Re: KAC NT4 vs. YHM SS Phantom

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JJones75</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thats right some meterials get very weak very fast at high temps like aluminum others not so much.

If you could make a can entirely from 718 Inconell that was fully welded I don't think you could get it hot enough on any weapon to blow it up , 304 SS yes , Titanium yes , 316 SS yes and certainly any make of aluminum.

The trouble is that Inconell is very expensive and a bitch to machine where the better grades of SS like 316 are not as bad to machine or cost that much and offer reasonable strength to weight ratio at high temps.

I built a can thats made from A286 alloy with a 718 Inconell blast baffle , its built heavy and fully welded (9"long 1.5" OD and weighs 46 ounces), I'd like to have sombody run several hundred round through it on a belt fed weapon to because , its heavier built and made from better material that ANY suppressor commercialy available I could have made it much lighter but it was one of my first and I was leaning on the side of caution with tube wall thickness.

ANYWAY , I'm not sure why the NT4 is such a loud can , their baffles are a well proven desgine , maybe due to low internal volume. </div></div>

At 46 ounces you could probably make a stainless silencer that could not be brought to failure. That's a lot of material to heat up. You could also add a 22 ounce finned aluminum heat sink to the outside of a welded stainless 5.56 can and it would never get hotter than 600F probably. And no one would ever buy it because of the weight.

The can is loud because the bore is .300"
Ops makes 5.56 cans with a .261 bore. Most makers would have .265 bores. .300 is just too free flowing to hope for much better performance out of it short of making it an inch or inch and a half longer which would again mean the people purchasing it currently would no longer want it.

Its rough engineering this stuff- youre pinned to a lot of parameters that can't change significantly, and you have to make a better product.

 

[kevin/aac]

Re: KAC NT4 vs. YHM SS Phantom

Between KAC and YHM...no question...KAC.

 

[JJones75]

Re: KAC NT4 vs. YHM SS Phantom

but what material are they using that is so much stronger than 316 ss? anything significantly stronger would cost ALOT more only adding to their already inflated prices

 

[christian77]

Re: KAC NT4 vs. YHM SS Phantom

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: HPLLC</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That's being really harsh on the M4QD. When you compare it to something considered very light in the suppressor world such as the M42000 from AAC, that's a 17.1 ounce silencer with a 3.7 ounce blackout FH mount. That's 20.8 ounces. The M4QD with it's flash hider is 24ounces. The weight difference is just 3.2 ounces. That's not as huge as it sounds.</div></div>
I wouldn't mind the weight if it performed better per sound reduction, however I do have a problem with it being as heavy as it is and not being particularly ear safe IMO.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: HPLLC</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...they are designed for combat...Most guys use these for door kicking with 10.5's just so they dont stun everyone when they pull the trigger on the 10.5 in a small room where that is similar to being flash banged.</div></div>
Ummm yeah, got that

but I think you would be suprised how many dudes opt <span style="text-decoration: underline">not</span> to use them because of their sub-par sound reduction and weight not to mention added length when conducting CQC.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: HPLLC</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you saw a baffle strike with an M4QD you saw something enormously rare. Most of these silencers contrary to instructions are mounted with crush washers by armorers in the military who are basically MORONS. They come with washer shims that guarantees parallelism is maintained for both POI shift minimization and safety from strikes. When the crush washer is used (as they always are) that is no longer the case and possibility for all manner of stupid shit is opened up.</div></div>
Actually myself and some other members on the forum fondled the shot-out can after it happened. I agree though, I do see crush washers on a lot of MK18s

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: HPLLC</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ops makes 5.56 cans with a .261 bore. Most makers would have .265 bores. .300 is just too free flowing to hope for much better performance out of it short of making it an inch or inch and a half longer which would again mean the people purchasing it currently would no longer want it.</div></div>
While the 12th MBS is considerably longer, I've yet to hear someone complain about it's performance, it is a fantastic can, but as you mentioned "parameters"...it's length kills it's usefulness in CQC, but then again it wasn't designed with room clearing in mind.

I'm not denying that the KAC suppressor is built like a tank...it is, but I believe that their are far superior cans available that perform better at a fraction the price. I feel the same way about SF cans...too much for too little.

 

[HPLLC]

Re: KAC NT4 vs. YHM SS Phantom

I agree some people opt out of using them on account of weight and length and perceived sub par performance.

The crush washer users are simply completely not following the instructions in the manual.

The 12th MBS is actually shorter in front of the gun than the M4QD, of course you can't mount one on a MK18. The 12th weighs 28 ounces + about 6 ounces of brake and collar. So it's a 34 ounce settup.

Sure there are cans with higher sound reduction and if your rate of fire supports their use, go ahead and buy one.

 

[Conqueror]

Re: KAC NT4 vs. YHM SS Phantom

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JJones75</div><div class="ubbcode-body">but what material are they using that is so much stronger than 316 ss? anything significantly stronger would cost ALOT more only adding to their already inflated prices </div></div>
The entire KAC can other than the perforated girdle is made of inconel, a nickel-based superalloy used in the rocket nozzles on the space shuttle. It's expensive as shit and challenging to machine, both of which help to explain the KAC's high price. The YHM has an inconel blast baffle only, and the remainder is 304SS which you can get in bulk from McMaster Carr.

 

[bsp212]

Re: KAC NT4 vs. YHM SS Phantom

Well, KAC and YHM are out. I did some research and ended up buying an AAC M41K.

Thanks BachelorJack

 

[JJones75]

Re: KAC NT4 vs. YHM SS Phantom

thats a pretty good can for the money you won't be dissapointed