Suppressors Thunder Beast vs?

[1911hombre]

Is Bannish a new name from Mack Bros.?

 

[NorthWesterner]

Short answer, no there is nothing that comes close to TBAC. But two while your at it. It’s gonna happen anyhow. This topic is very well covered. The new search function works much better than it used to.

 

[EnXCess]

Short answer, no there is nothing that comes close to TBAC.

Well, not if what you're after is PURE BS, I'll certainly give you that.

Look, unlike the people posting here who have a vested interest in selling TBAC, I have no affiliation with Silencer Central or Mack Brothers (and yes, Mack Brothers makes the Banish suppressors for SC). I'm not an SC fanboy -- if something better comes along, I will buy that in a heartbeat. But right now saying "there is nothing that comes close to TBAC" is a bunch of hogwash. The Banish are just as quiet, just as well made and provide options that neither TBAC nor anyone else offers, such as user-serviceablility and combination 7"/9" suppressor, the Banish 30.

And let me get this straight -- you guys are going to dig up a target from '05 or '06 to prove how "accurate" a dirty TBAC is? You can't just take 25 rounds and your most accurate rifle to the range this weekend and show us a bunch of sub-.4 MOA 5-shot groups? You have to dig into the archives to find one? Yeah, right.

It is the Banish that "nothing comes close to."

 

[22-Dasher]

 

[c ward]

Well, not if what you're after is PURE BS, I'll certainly give you that.

Look, unlike the people posting here who have a vested interest in selling TBAC, I have no affiliation with Silencer Central or Mack Brothers (and yes, Mack Brothers makes the Banish suppressors for SC). I'm not an SC fanboy -- if something better comes along, I will buy that in a heartbeat. But right now saying "there is nothing that comes close to TBAC" is a bunch of hogwash. The Banish are just as quiet, just as well made and provide options that neither TBAC nor anyone else offers, such as user-serviceablility and combination 7"/9" suppressor, the Banish 30.

And let me get this straight -- you guys are going to dig up a target from '05 or '06 to prove how "accurate" a dirty TBAC is? You can't just take 25 rounds and your most accurate rifle to the range this weekend and show us a bunch of sub-.4 MOA 5-shot groups? You have to dig into the archives to find one? Yeah, right.

It is the Banish that "nothing comes close to."

If the picture looks like a target to you I can recommend a good optometrist.

 

[bmash]

Look, unlike the people posting here who have a vested interest in selling TBAC,

I posted earlier that I love my 7 and 9 and while I won’t say there is nothing like TBAC, since I haven’t shot all of them, I will say I love mine. I have shot well over 500 rounds in my 7 and it still shoots 1/2 MOA - on a couple of custom rifles. (And I do shoot 5 rd groups) I might clean one day. And I have NO vested interest in them.
My dirty suppressor shoots really well, and I don’t care to waste 5 - 5 shot groups to try and win an argument since unless you were present you wouldnt believe I shot them at 100 vs 25 yards.

 

[carbonbased]

As good as TBAC suppressors seem to be, it really would behoove TBAC to be courteous. I know it's tough to sit on one's hands, but potential customers are watching.

@EnXCess may be asking some pointed questions, but I don't think he's crossed a line. And pointed questions deserve some pointed answers. I, for one, would like some detailed engineering-type answers as to why TBAC doesn't make user-serviceable cans (except the 556 model). Most users aren't military, and have other priorities besides ultimate-ultimate durability. It's a bit of a head-scratcher to me.

I very recently received Banish 30 (got it in a record four months). Been using it on rimfire, 17 Hornet, and .204. I don't owe the manufacturers of the Banish anything, and have no relationship or anything else with them. I've been very pleased with the product.

Here's a picture and a post regarding how nearby objects affect a bullet's flight path. The thread was about Magentospeeds and POI shift. If you look at picture's lower right, you can see a ground-effect that acts upon the bullet.

Edit: here’s another post on the subject, and a pic from the post:

I, for one, would not want to get into an engineering argument with Mr @squib-load. Draw your own conclusions after reading.

 

[NorthWesterner]

Well, not if what you're after is PURE BS, I'll certainly give you that.

Look, unlike the people posting here who have a vested interest in selling TBAC, I have no affiliation with Silencer Central or Mack Brothers (and yes, Mack Brothers makes the Banish suppressors for SC). I'm not an SC fanboy -- if something better comes along, I will buy that in a heartbeat. But right now saying "there is nothing that comes close to TBAC" is a bunch of hogwash. The Banish are just as quiet, just as well made and provide options that neither TBAC nor anyone else offers, such as user-serviceablility and combination 7"/9" suppressor, the Banish 30.

And let me get this straight -- you guys are going to dig up a target from '05 or '06 to prove how "accurate" a dirty TBAC is? You can't just take 25 rounds and your most accurate rifle to the range this weekend and show us a bunch of sub-.4 MOA 5-shot groups? You have to dig into the archives to find one? Yeah, right.

It is the Banish that "nothing comes close to."

This cracked me up. “Vested interest”, I have nothing of the sort. Tbac is the gold standard. Good luck finding credible sources to say otherwise. Yes there are other quality cans out there. Yes you can spend your hard earned cash on somthing that will come close. For me the customer service, build quality and performance has yet to be matched in the precision rifle can market.

the comment about printing sub .4 moa groups with ammo loaded without pick and choosing, yes infact many of us can and regularly do that.

I have no dog in the fight. But why would I recommend anything but the industry standard to someone on a precision rifle forum.

I may have omitted one can worth mentioning for precision work. The area 419 maverick. From what I know, they are top notch as well.

 

[LeftyJason]

As good as TBAC suppressors seem to be, it really would behoove TBAC to be courteous. I know it's tough to sit on one's hands, but potential customers are watching.

@EnXCess may be asking some pointed questions, but I don't think he's crossed a line. And pointed questions deserve some pointed answers. I, for one, would like some detailed engineering-type answers as to why TBAC doesn't make user-serviceable cans (except the 556 model). Most users aren't military, and have other priorities besides ultimate-ultimate durability. It's a bit of a head-scratcher to me.

I very recently received Banish 30 (got it in a record four months). Been using it on rimfire, 17 Hornet, and .204. I don't owe the manufacturers of the Banish anything, and have no relationship or anything else with them. I've been very pleased with the product.

Here's a picture and a post regarding how nearby objects affect a bullet's flight path. The thread was about Magentospeeds and POI shift. If you look at picture's lower right, you can see a ground-effect that acts upon the bullet.

View attachment 7306086

Edit: here’s another post on the subject, and a pic from the post:
View attachment 7306114

I, for one, would not want to get into an engineering argument with Mr @squib-load. Draw your own conclusions after reading.

What is this in response to?

 

[Zak Smith]

Ray is going to tell it to you how it is, and the more ridiculous the claims are vs. his personal experience the more blunt he will be.

And sure, I can be the patient and "nice" one. Here goes:

First, to carbonbased's question, there's no secret to why our mainline cans are not take-apart, and we've answered that question before. Basically it comes down to ultimate strength vs weight, strength vs. size, durability, longevity, accuracy, and absolute repeatability. Many of those might seem like restatement of the same thing, but they aren't exactly. More parts = more potential for movement. Disassembleability includes a higher potential for error (or just in general a problem) with reassembly that could cause either an accuracy or a strength problem. Any play between parts when subjected to the impact forces of a centerfire rifle shot can quickly self destruct those parts. When you have what ends up as a solid completely unified single piece of metal, there is nothing to move, nothing to gall, nothing to work lose, nothing to vibrate at an interface, nothing to be reassembled not quite exactly the same way. You get the point. So our flagship centerfire rifle suppressor line is not "take apart." Some of this is due to actually "running the numbers" (including a gazillion cpu-days of FEA-- that, yes, taking into account the shockwave propagation inside the can) and a lot of it is due to building, shooting, destroying, repairing, and servicing a large number of suppressors for over a decade.

And hey, if you want a take-apart centerfire can, go for it. We have no problem with that and we're not really arguing about the Banish. We're friends with the Mack Bros guys and they make good cans.

It's just that our collective personal experience with all of our testing, both methodological and "ad hoc", going back roughly 20 years, does not support the idea that a dirty can is less accurate, outside of cans that have nearly doubled in weight. We haven't had any customer reports with that problem either. I mean, it would be an easy pattern to identify: you start with a new rifle and can, establish a baseline accuracy of 0.5 MOA or better, and start shooting, and then notice over the next X-thousand rounds than your accuracy degrades but only when shooting suppressed. If "frequent cleaning" were required for our cans to shoot at the level of rifle, we would know by now.

I don't have photos that match EnXCess's criteria (.. that he made up yesterday.. that it just so happens his example target just barely beats..), partly because we typically don't take target photos. But obviously we have shot many groups. I totally get the idea that you can cherry-pick a group and use that to "show off" your rifle, but the flip-side of that is that groups sampled randomly do show data that is as statistically valid as N-groups in a row. And that's basically what you have when you take a random video, or take the first group of the day, or whatever. And Ray does have a lot of videos where he shoots a group to show repeatability, after just showing up at the range, and the hits on steel at 400 or 600 or 800 or whatever just happen to also be half MOA or better, and he drives up in the same take and shows it in the video. I mean, shoot, here's a random soldier who shows up at a demo and knocks out a 1" group at 400m on a demo rifle ( youtube link ).

I also take logical exception to this line of argument (paraphrased): "a take-apart can is better because cans must be clean to be accurate because 'my' take-apart can doesn't shoot well when dirty." I mean, yeah, you've probably proven that if you have that particular take-apart can (on your rifle, etc, etc) that you need to clean it more often. But nobody else has noticed that same problem, take-apart cans or not. And yeah, there are other people with quarter to third MOA guns out there. So that's kind of a big problem with the proposition.

Now, if a customer or potential customer had some concerns about whether or not he could depend on the accuracy staying constant as the can accumulated normal amounts of carbon, we could gather experimental data to show that to their satisfaction. Like Ray said, in the past, we have had to do so for some of our .gov customers. But are we going to run out tomorrow and shoot groups for a guy on the internet who claims he has a problem with a competitor's product that literally nobody shooting a TBAC has ever reported? No. Heck before this thread is over, I wouldn't be surprised if someone shooting a TBAC posts his own groups.

 

[TxWelder35]

The carbon builds up on every part of the baffle, including the rim of hole. Would you like a photo?

When you have a target showing at least three 5-shot groups, all under .4 MOA (at any range you care to shoot at) shot back-to-back with a dirty can, by all means post it. You'll be lucky to get three under 1 MOA.

I do not HAVE to clean my suppressors, but I have the option. I like options.

Hacked together Form 1 can with 1500 rounds through it, and a barrel that hasn’t been cleaned in 700 rounds and it would still pass that test. I don’t think That rifle has ever shot bigger than 1/2 moa with handloads now that I think about it. I rarely shoot 100 yard groups though. Boring.

 

[EnXCess]

More parts = more potential for movement. Disassembleability includes a higher potential for error (or just in general a problem) with reassembly that could cause either an accuracy or a strength problem. Any play between parts when subjected to the impact forces of a centerfire rifle shot can quickly self destruct those parts. When you have what ends up as a solid completely unified single piece of metal, there is nothing to move, nothing to gall, nothing to work lose, nothing to vibrate at an interface, nothing to be reassembled not quite exactly the same way. You get the point.

Those are certainly legitimate concerns but I think whoever designed the Varminter/Banish (Mack Bro's, I'm guessing) seems to have taken them all into consideration and figured out a way to prevent them. Of course, nothing is "idiot-proof" so I'm sure someone could create a problem by failing to reassemble a Banish correctly. It is sort of like hand-loading ammo -- there are people who just shouldn't be doing it, and may hurt themselves with it, but I definitely want to keep doing it because of the benefits I derive from it. You have to pay attention when disassembling and reassembling a Banish, but any reasonably sensible and careful person should have no problem. So while I can see why you would have the concerns you described, they are not concerns I share after having a Banish for a couple of years.

I also take logical exception to this line of argument (paraphrased): "a take-apart can is better because cans must be clean to be accurate because 'my' take-apart can doesn't shoot well when dirty."

Except I did not say that. In fact, I would guess that 90% or more of the people reading here would be thrilled with the results I get with a dirty suppressor with the rifle I posted the target from, because it still averages .4 - .5 MOA. But what I have learned is that if you want to average .3 or better, and your rifle/ammo are capable of it, it is best to be suppressed -- but you aren't going to do it with filthy baffles. They do not have to be perfectly clean, but they cannot be packed with the carbon from hundreds of rounds.

So, hey, if you're a PRS guy looking for maximum strength, a TB Ultra is the way to go. But if you're a bench shooter looking for absolute maximum accuracy, I'd get the Banish.

 

[carbonbased]

Ray is going to tell it to you how it is, and the more ridiculous the claims are vs. his personal experience the more blunt he will be.

And sure, I can be the patient and "nice" one. Here goes:

First, to carbonbased's question, there's no secret to why our mainline cans are not take-apart, and we've answered that question before. Basically it comes down to ultimate strength vs weight, strength vs. size, durability, longevity, accuracy, and absolute repeatability. Many of those might seem like restatement of the same thing, but they aren't exactly. More parts = more potential for movement. Disassembleability includes a higher potential for error (or just in general a problem) with reassembly that could cause either an accuracy or a strength problem. Any play between parts when subjected to the impact forces of a centerfire rifle shot can quickly self destruct those parts. When you have what ends up as a solid completely unified single piece of metal, there is nothing to move, nothing to gall, nothing to work lose, nothing to vibrate at an interface, nothing to be reassembled not quite exactly the same way. You get the point. So our flagship centerfire rifle suppressor line is not "take apart." Some of this is due to actually "running the numbers" (including a gazillion cpu-days of FEA-- that, yes, taking into account the shockwave propagation inside the can) and a lot of it is due to building, shooting, destroying, repairing, and servicing a large number of suppressors for over a decade.

And hey, if you want a take-apart centerfire can, go for it. We have no problem with that and we're not really arguing about the Banish. We're friends with the Mack Bros guys and they make good cans.

It's just that our collective personal experience with all of our testing, both methodological and "ad hoc", going back roughly 20 years, does not support the idea that a dirty can is less accurate, outside of cans that have nearly doubled in weight. We haven't had any customer reports with that problem either. I mean, it would be an easy pattern to identify: you start with a new rifle and can, establish a baseline accuracy of 0.5 MOA or better, and start shooting, and then notice over the next X-thousand rounds than your accuracy degrades but only when shooting suppressed. If "frequent cleaning" were required for our cans to shoot at the level of rifle, we would know by now.

I don't have photos that match EnXCess's criteria (.. that he made up yesterday.. that it just so happens his example target just barely beats..), partly because we typically don't take target photos. But obviously we have shot many groups. I totally get the idea that you can cherry-pick a group and use that to "show off" your rifle, but the flip-side of that is that groups sampled randomly do show data that is as statistically valid as N-groups in a row. And that's basically what you have when you take a random video, or take the first group of the day, or whatever. And Ray does have a lot of videos where he shoots a group to show repeatability, after just showing up at the range, and the hits on steel at 400 or 600 or 800 or whatever just happen to also be half MOA or better, and he drives up in the same take and shows it in the video. I mean, shoot, here's a random soldier who shows up at a demo and knocks out a 1" group at 400m on a demo rifle ( youtube link ).

I also take logical exception to this line of argument (paraphrased): "a take-apart can is better because cans must be clean to be accurate because 'my' take-apart can doesn't shoot well when dirty." I mean, yeah, you've probably proven that if you have that particular take-apart can (on your rifle, etc, etc) that you need to clean it more often. But nobody else has noticed that same problem, take-apart cans or not. And yeah, there are other people with quarter to third MOA guns out there. So that's kind of a big problem with the proposition.

Now, if a customer or potential customer had some concerns about whether or not he could depend on the accuracy staying constant as the can accumulated normal amounts of carbon, we could gather experimental data to show that to their satisfaction. Like Ray said, in the past, we have had to do so for some of our .gov customers. But are we going to run out tomorrow and shoot groups for a guy on the internet who claims he has a problem with a competitor's product that literally nobody shooting a TBAC has ever reported? No. Heck before this thread is over, I wouldn't be surprised if someone shooting a TBAC posts his own groups.

Zak, thank you for taking the time to respond in a calm and respectful manner. For a long-term successful business, I would argue that not only can you be the patient and "nice" one, but that an effective company representative must be.

Regardless of the validity of the individual party's arguments, the optics of a manufacturer losing their cool in a forum setting (we've probably all seen this) look very poor. Here's a quote: "Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."

I am not saying EnXCess is the fool, rather this is something to live by, especially a business communicating in a forum. I also am not saying TBAC reps were being jerks, but the winds were starting to blow that way. Fanbois don't help, of course.

For a business, the takeaway is something like, "Try not to argue in public," not "In public, argue only with smart people, not fools." However, regular non-biz folks can usually get by with the latter quote, so long as they’re cogent and respectful.

I don't have a leg to stand on regarding accuracy arguments, but the ground-plane studies have merits. I suppose it would depend on how the suppressor gets dirty (more on the bottom?), the shape and quantity of the "dirt", etc etc. Beyond my pay grade.

My personal arguments around owning a take-apart suppressor revolve around long-term maintenance in keeping the suppressor functioning. The argument is as follows:

1. I would prefer my suppressor to last at least as long as my guns…it is not a consumable. And laws may change, making new suppressors impossible to obtain. Therefore, I would hope it will last 100+ years and be passed down through a trust to my children. Within that timeframe, it's going to need regular cleaning.
2. Suppressors are not cheap, and take forever to obtain; you probably won't just throw one away and you cannot immediately buy another at the gun store and near improbable to sell
3. Even center-fire cans get filled with crap (see https://www.snipershide.com/shooting/threads/do-you-clean-your-suppressor.6981560/)
4. It's harder to clean a sealed up suppressor (heck, a sealed up anything) than to clean something you can take apart
5. As they fill with crap, cans tend to become louder. Louder is not better.
6. Heavy, filled-up suppressors may cause POI shifts because they become a big(ger) weight at the end of your barrel. Also, it seems that ground-effects in very dirty cans might contribute to the problem (link 1, link 2)
7. Do you really want to send your can back the manufacturer for a few weeks, just for a cleaning? Or would you rather just inspect all of it and quickly clean it yourself?
8. If your suppressor's manufacturer goes out of business, I am unsure of the legality of shipping it to a third party for cleaning.

• Additionally, a side benefit is that a take-apart can lets you use the same can for both centerfire and rimfire, if you so choose. Handy in a pinch, as well.

Not that Thunderbeast is going out of business anytime soon (hopefully not, but Covid is trying to kill us all, figuratively or literally). However, in that theoretical and unfortunate event, Zak, could you give some guidance as to how a consumer would deal with third-party cleaning? Is it legal to ship a can to some non-manufacturer for a cleaning?

I wish someone would invent a cleaning device that magically, quickly (edit: and safely) cleans a sealed suppressor (no matter if it’s a little dirty or 10oz overweight).

edit: Here's a list of user-serviceable take-apart suppressors I put together.

 

[c ward]

You're right, until you start shooting a seriously accurate rifle. Because "every bullet has to go somewhere" you can get an occasional half-minute, 3-shot group with a dirty suppressor, but I cannot get consistently great groups with one (meaning multiple 5-shot groups on the same page). I can with a clean suppressor. This is a .204 at 100 yds shot a couple of weeks ago through my Banish 223:



Once you start taking dirty suppressors apart you see that you get large amounts of carbon build-up on the baffle holes. Without cleaning, that build-up continues until it gets blasted off with shooting, resulting in vastly different hole sizes and geometry as the process get repeated for each baffle.

It's like with the crown of a barrel -- you would not think that the accuracy of a bullet that has left the barrel could be affected by a tiny scratch or ding on the crown a quarter-inch away from the bore, but it sure as heck can, and will be nearly every shot. Those dirty baffle holes mess with the gas the same way, causing slight changes in your POI. If you think MOA is accurate, you will probably never notice.

And please don't post a photo of a single .4 MOA group shot seven years ago with a suppressor that has had "thousands of rounds through it" to "prove" how accurate a dirty suppressor can be. Post a target with at least three 5-shot groups on it, with all of them being under .4 MOA. I cannot do it with my non-cleanable can, so I doubt you can either.

So here you say that you can't hold groups better than .4 MOA with YOUR dirty can and again a couple posts down you're talking about barely holding 1 MOA with a dirty can and now you're saying that no they hold .4 - .5 just fine it's only when you want ultimate accuracy and shoot .3s off the bench is it an issue . So which one is it ?? your posts contradict each other .

 

[EnXCess]

Actually, they are not at all contradictory. Maybe you just nn to read closer.

 

[22-Dasher]

So, hey, if you're a PRS guy looking for maximum strength, a TB Ultra is the way to go. But if you're a bench shooter looking for absolute maximum accuracy, I'd get the Banish.

Wth? Oh yeah because soooo many benchrest matches have been won with a suppressor. Seriously, not one person is going to believe that until you go out and win a BR match with it. For that matter, has the Banish even won a national PRS match, being its so much more accurate and all.... Until then it’s all but Vanished.

 

[HansohnBrothers]

Is Bannish a new name from Mack Bros.?

Banish is the Silencer Central product made by Mack Bros.

 

[Zak Smith]

A whole bunch of replies to catch up--

To Enxcess,

re: take-apart cans. That's fine. Like I said, we are not here to argue about take-apart cans. Want one? Great, shoot one. We make two different models that are take-apart ourselves. Based on our experience, we don't make our flagship rifle suppressors as take-apart. If those reasons line up with someone's applications, then it's a good fit. I'm also not in this thread to convince anyone to buy a TBAC. I am here to answer informational questions.

The idea that clean cans are more accurate than dirty ones (* per the limits already discussed) does not line up with our experience testing cans, ours and others, for close to 20 years. If both statements are true -- that your can shoots better when cleaned after every few hundred rounds, and that we haven't seen those results in the cans we've tested long-term for accuracy, then it would be an interesting exercise to figure out why you see one result and TBAC shooters see a different result.

Couple other things that don't quite add up. No centerfire can is "packed with carbon from hundreds of rounds." If we interpret "hundreds" to mean, like, a few hundred, you'll barely have a dusting of carbon. I'll attach to this post a kind of crummy iphone photo of an Ultra 9 that hasn't been cleaned since 2015. Another thing that doesn't make sense is the comment about absolute strength and PRS shooters. PRS shooters usually shoot 6 and 6.5mm cartridges roughly in the powder-capacity class of .308, maybe a little bit more, with barrels 24" or over. That's not really the "ultimate strength" case.

Carbonbased,

I'll just say a few comments on your "point list". The idea that a centerfire suppressor will get filled up and then have to be thrown away is not really realistic. I mean, yeah, some designs are harder to fully clean than others based on the topology inside (eg, coaxial), but most cone-type baffles (including TBAC and your Banish) do not have this problem and are easy to clean chemically. With regard to accuracy, POI shift, and louder. Yes, technically that is true in the limits, however, in practice it takes close to a half-pound of carbon before you notice it's louder. You might or might not see a POI shift at that point. The methods we use to clean customers' cans are not anything special, it's just more convenient for the customer in some cases than dealing with chemicals. We're set up for it. The only special tool we have is a pressure washer attachment that sprays high pressure water from a very small nozzle at a 90-degree angle when inserted into the suppressor, and I'm not even sure we've had to break that out recently. There is also no problem with shipping a can (or any NFA device) to any 07/02 FFL/SOT for service, you just need to include a repair letter. But what are they going to do? The same thing that we do, and that we recommend our customers do: clean them chemically. But the reality is that it takes a large number of rounds fired consistently over a long period for cleaning to be a regular necessity. The majority of people simply don't put enough rounds downrange for it to be something they think of more than every 3-5 years, and that's the ideal case. I have a JET from roughly 2004 that has never been cleaned. My old HALO from roughly the same time has never been cleaned. I had never cleaned my 30P-1, etc.

22-Dasher,

You make a good point about BR. Like NRAHP and F-Class, BR rules outlaw silencers just like brakes in the name of "recoil reduction devices". So we will never see those results. Here are some people I would listen to if they embarked on a study of suppressed ultra-accurate shooting https://www.nbrsa.org/short-range-group-world-records/

 

[LeftyJason]

@carbonbased How can you tell the ground effect coming from one side only when the ground effect is coming from all sides inside a can? The ground effect from a concentric bore should affect all sides pretty evenly on a cone baffle type can and be the biggest over riding factor. The comparisons to the magneto speed things you showed is only constrained on one side. That's a big difference from the inside of a can.

@Zak Smith Is the build up on the inside of a can spread out pretty evenly radially or does it tend to collect on one side more than others?

 

[Zak Smith]

In the blast chamber the deposits will be influenced by the brake or FH ports/slots. Other than that, it's pretty evenly distributed.

 

[264win]

Here is another .02 from an average Joe with no financial interest in any suppressor manufacturer. I have several Rim fire and center fire cans from multiple manufacturers all have thousands of rounds with no cleaning, and All my rifles shoot better suppressed, than unsuppressed. (Or perhaps I just shoot them better) Several Of them shoot well under .5moa on a consistent basis.

 

[carbonbased]

@carbonbased How can you tell the ground effect coming from one side only when the ground effect is coming from all sides inside a can? The ground effect from a concentric bore should affect all sides pretty evenly on a cone baffle type can and be the biggest over riding factor. The comparisons to the magneto speed things you showed is only constrained on one side. That's a big difference from the inside of a can.

@Zak Smith Is the build up on the inside of a can spread out pretty evenly radially or does it tend to collect on one side more than others?

I’m no engineer, but I would guess that if the deposits are not very thick and are evenly deposited AND the the deposits haven’t made the silencer’s “bore” smaller or uneven, then there wouldn’t be much of a shift.

I was assuming, given some of the suppressors that people on this forum have shown (many oz heavier than new) that gravity might come into play and thus the bottom of the suppressor would have more deposits. With some folks, the myth of “you don’t have to clean a centerfire supressor” dies a difficult (to clean) and long (time spent cleaning) death. (Not referring to TBAC)

@Zak Smith I appreciate the response. I wasn’t meaning to suggest anyone would actually throw away their suppressor, TBAC or otherwise, or that the garbage was the inevitable fate of all sealed cans. Rather, I was just building up to the point that suppressors are cherished, and thus are deserving of maintenance (which is easier if one can take it apart).

I think that little pressure washer might be a good sales item for you. Just had an idea: I seem to remember, back when I was forced to paint every effing room of the inside of my old house (horrible spatter paint! prev owner) that they sell these little turbo paint roller washers that spin the rollers furiously until they’re clean. Wife refused to buy one. Perhaps there’s an idea somewhere in that type of design…of course you don’t want a suppressor bonking against the sides of a plastic tube for hours, but still…getting a solution spinning inside the suppressor…combined with skinny tall ultrasonic…hmmmm.

Wait, just googled it and found roller cleaners one chucks up in a drill (roller attaches somehow) and then you spin them inside a five gallon bucket filled with cleaning solution. Design a way to attach the suppressor to the drill and spin away!

Hmmmmmm. Zak, leave the $5-new-product-idea tip somewhere where I can find it, hahah!

 

[TBACRAY]

Is this one dirty enough for you? Notice no buildup around the bore. tons of carbon, enough that the flutes are filled in.

 

[deersniper]

Those are certainly legitimate concerns but I think whoever designed the Varminter/Banish (Mack Bro's, I'm guessing) seems to have taken them all into consideration and figured out a way to prevent them. Of course, nothing is "idiot-proof" so I'm sure someone could create a problem by failing to reassemble a Banish correctly. It is sort of like hand-loading ammo -- there are people who just shouldn't be doing it, and may hurt themselves with it, but I definitely want to keep doing it because of the benefits I derive from it. You have to pay attention when disassembling and reassembling a Banish, but any reasonably sensible and careful person should have no problem. So while I can see why you would have the concerns you described, they are not concerns I share after having a Banish for a couple of years.




Except I did not say that. In fact, I would guess that 90% or more of the people reading here would be thrilled with the results I get with a dirty suppressor with the rifle I posted the target from, because it still averages .4 - .5 MOA. But what I have learned is that if you want to average .3 or better, and your rifle/ammo are capable of it, it is best to be suppressed -- but you aren't going to do it with filthy baffles. They do not have to be perfectly clean, but they cannot be packed with the carbon from hundreds of rounds.

So, hey, if you're a PRS guy looking for maximum strength, a TB Ultra is the way to go. But if you're a bench shooter looking for absolute maximum accuracy, I'd get the Banish.

You sure talk a lot about tiny groupa

Let’s see your 5x5s with a clean can and a dirty one.

 

[EnXCess]

Is this one dirty enough for you? Notice no buildup around the bore. tons of carbon, enough that the flutes are filled in.

You sure talk a lot about tiny groupa

Let’s see your 5x5s with a clean can and a dirty one.

Yes, "tiny groups" are what I'm about, whether I'm shooting at 100 yards or 1,000.

Sorry, I am kind enough to share what I know about achieving small groups, but I'm not going to go to the trouble of proving it to skeptics.

 

[EnXCess]

Notice no buildup around the bore. tons of carbon, enough that the flutes are filled in.

This is a joke, right?

I have seen imperfections in a crown, well away from the bore, that were so small you could hardly even detect them with the naked eye, and yet they made accuracy impossible. A quick re-crowning and voila! Accurate rifle again.

And you want to claim there is "no buildup" in the bore that would affect accuracy because you can't see any in a blurry photo shot from a distance?

 

[deersniper]

Yes, "tiny groups" are what I'm about, whether I'm shooting at 100 yards or 1,000.

Sorry, I am kind enough to share what I know about achieving small groups, but I'm not going to go to the trouble of proving it to skeptics.

I’m throwing the BS flag on your .3 groups. And your .2 additional spread with a can.


Talk is cheap

 

[22-Dasher]

@EnXCess

 

[c ward]

Yes, "tiny groups" are what I'm about, whether I'm shooting at 100 yards or 1,000.

Sorry, I am kind enough to share what I know about achieving small groups, but I'm not going to go to the trouble of proving it to skeptics.

Oh the hypocrisy , you call people out but refuse to demonstrate your claims , nice .

You still haven't addressed the picture of the rifle barrels that were posted back on the the 1st page that you called a " target picture " .

Ray is not saying there is no build up he is saying there has been no degradation of accuracy from when the can came off of the CNC machine .

Maybe Accurate Shooter is a better fit than a forum for practical precision shooting .

 

[jb0311]

 

[Zak Smith]

I have seen imperfections in a crown, well away from the bore, that were so small you could hardly even detect them with the naked eye, and yet they made accuracy impossible. A quick re-crowning and voila! Accurate rifle again.

The two rifle crowns I posted earlier with over a tenth of an inch of carbon buildup were shooting sub-half when those photos were taken

 

[EnXCess]

The two rifle crowns I posted earlier with over a tenth of an inch of carbon buildup were shooting sub-half when those photos were taken

Everyone's rifle shoots "half-minute" until they try to put 20 in a row into the X-ring at 600 yards on a dead-calm day.

 

[c ward]

Everyone's rifle shoots "half-minute" until they try to put 20 in a row into the X-ring at 600 yards on a dead-calm day.

Hmm , I wonder where this quote came from ,

" Just because you have never heard of a phenomenon does not mean it does not exist. "

more hypocrisy it would seem .

 

[AIAW]

Are you saying the smaller caliber should sound quieter than the larger calibers for ultra 9 v 338 ultra?

Also the ultra 9 is rated up to 300RUM

Not in particular. I just find it sort of hard to tell a difference with the naked (or protected) ear. There's only so much one can do for the sonic report which is a physics limitation for any suppressor - well technically the suppressor doesn't even matter for that really (not including sub-sonic ammunition of course).

This is why I personally generally buy based on attachment method engineering and overall ruggedness versus dB ratings myself.

 

[Triple D]

And please don't post a photo of a single .4 MOA group shot seven years ago with a suppressor that has had "thousands of rounds through it" to "prove" how accurate a dirty suppressor can be. Post a target with at least three 5-shot groups on it, with all of them being under .4 MOA. I cannot do it with my non-cleanable can, so I doubt you can either.

Circa Christmas 2018 when I was testing loads for a new rifle. The can had over 1500rds, probably over 2k, on it at the time. Never cleaned, still hasn’t been cleaned. There are multiple loads tested, and a magnetospeed was attached for some groups, and those groups do open up. 24.4 is my go to load. Draw your own conclusions on dirty cans and precision.

 

[Triple D]

And from Sept. last year. Over 3k on the can then. Shot fairly quick, mirage started getting me towards the end, but still averaged in your magical .4moa range.

 

[kthomas]

Ray is going to tell it to you how it is, and the more ridiculous the claims are vs. his personal experience the more blunt he will be.

And sure, I can be the patient and "nice" one. Here goes:

First, to carbonbased's question, there's no secret to why our mainline cans are not take-apart, and we've answered that question before. Basically it comes down to ultimate strength vs weight, strength vs. size, durability, longevity, accuracy, and absolute repeatability. Many of those might seem like restatement of the same thing, but they aren't exactly. More parts = more potential for movement. Disassembleability includes a higher potential for error (or just in general a problem) with reassembly that could cause either an accuracy or a strength problem. Any play between parts when subjected to the impact forces of a centerfire rifle shot can quickly self destruct those parts. When you have what ends up as a solid completely unified single piece of metal, there is nothing to move, nothing to gall, nothing to work lose, nothing to vibrate at an interface, nothing to be reassembled not quite exactly the same way. You get the point. So our flagship centerfire rifle suppressor line is not "take apart." Some of this is due to actually "running the numbers" (including a gazillion cpu-days of FEA-- that, yes, taking into account the shockwave propagation inside the can) and a lot of it is due to building, shooting, destroying, repairing, and servicing a large number of suppressors for over a decade.

And hey, if you want a take-apart centerfire can, go for it. We have no problem with that and we're not really arguing about the Banish. We're friends with the Mack Bros guys and they make good cans.

It's just that our collective personal experience with all of our testing, both methodological and "ad hoc", going back roughly 20 years, does not support the idea that a dirty can is less accurate, outside of cans that have nearly doubled in weight. We haven't had any customer reports with that problem either. I mean, it would be an easy pattern to identify: you start with a new rifle and can, establish a baseline accuracy of 0.5 MOA or better, and start shooting, and then notice over the next X-thousand rounds than your accuracy degrades but only when shooting suppressed. If "frequent cleaning" were required for our cans to shoot at the level of rifle, we would know by now.

I don't have photos that match EnXCess's criteria (.. that he made up yesterday.. that it just so happens his example target just barely beats..), partly because we typically don't take target photos. But obviously we have shot many groups. I totally get the idea that you can cherry-pick a group and use that to "show off" your rifle, but the flip-side of that is that groups sampled randomly do show data that is as statistically valid as N-groups in a row. And that's basically what you have when you take a random video, or take the first group of the day, or whatever. And Ray does have a lot of videos where he shoots a group to show repeatability, after just showing up at the range, and the hits on steel at 400 or 600 or 800 or whatever just happen to also be half MOA or better, and he drives up in the same take and shows it in the video. I mean, shoot, here's a random soldier who shows up at a demo and knocks out a 1" group at 400m on a demo rifle ( youtube link ).

I also take logical exception to this line of argument (paraphrased): "a take-apart can is better because cans must be clean to be accurate because 'my' take-apart can doesn't shoot well when dirty." I mean, yeah, you've probably proven that if you have that particular take-apart can (on your rifle, etc, etc) that you need to clean it more often. But nobody else has noticed that same problem, take-apart cans or not. And yeah, there are other people with quarter to third MOA guns out there. So that's kind of a big problem with the proposition.

Now, if a customer or potential customer had some concerns about whether or not he could depend on the accuracy staying constant as the can accumulated normal amounts of carbon, we could gather experimental data to show that to their satisfaction. Like Ray said, in the past, we have had to do so for some of our .gov customers. But are we going to run out tomorrow and shoot groups for a guy on the internet who claims he has a problem with a competitor's product that literally nobody shooting a TBAC has ever reported? No. Heck before this thread is over, I wouldn't be surprised if someone shooting a TBAC posts his own groups.

As an engineer, I always appreciate simple designs with less parts. Same reason why I'm not a fan of QD systems on cans, or "quick change" barrel systems on actions.

The more parts there are, the more potential failure points you have, and thus, more potential for any fuck-ups.

I'll always take the more simple route over the complicated one if given the choice.

 

[Zak Smith]

As an engineer, I always appreciate simple designs with less parts. Same reason why I'm not a fan of QD systems on cans, or "quick change" barrel systems on actions.

You know, that reminds me, when "quick" switch barrel rifles started coming out in earnest, like around the time of the PSR solicitation, we noted that on average, the switch barrel systems had more POI shift suppressed vs unsuppresed. It's not that they were less accurate, they just had more shift.

 

[kthomas]

You know, that reminds me, when "quick" switch barrel rifles started coming out in earnest, like around the time of the PSR solicitation, we noted that on average, the switch barrel systems had more POI shift suppressed vs unsuppresed. It's not that they were less accurate, they just had more shift.

With quick barrel systems becoming more popular, a lot of people are finding out what you already know. A barrel held in by set/grub screws is more prone to POI shifts then a shouldered barrel torqued to ~80-100+ ft-lbs, and it's pretty obvious why.

If you never bump your barrel you may never notice it, but I remember a lot of conversations occuring last year, with people discovering more POI reliability issues with their quick change systems. More then a few then chose to get their barrels spun up to be shouldered and torqued to the action, rather then rely on grub screws as a result.

I wasn't surprised by the results people were discovering, and if given the choice, I never choose to introduce more potential failure points into the system.

 

[22-Dasher]

My buddy has over 20,000 rounds on one of his suppressors. It has never been cleaned and he whoops my ass every match