thread about why suppress an AR15?

[MoxyDave]

Adding a suppressor typically increases gas pressure and dwell time, so the bolt cycles faster and harder. An adjustable gas block, such as the Noveske Switchblock can mitigate this effect somewhat.

The silicone trick might work for a few rounds, but that is a Mickey Mouse solution. The Gas Buster helps a tiny bit but it's not very significant. If you're shooting suppressed, you're going to get gas-face with rapid fire. I don't think the additional wear on the gun is significant unless you're talking thousands of rounds.

I've found that the extra gunk blown back by the suppressor actually begins to polish all the moving parts. I have an AR I shoot suppressed 100% of the time and the action is smooth as glass, much more so than my other guns.

However, all that gunk starts to gum things up much more quickly than without a suppressor. After 2 or 3 hundred rounds my suppressed guns start to have trouble getting fully into battery. A quick shot of lube helps, but the extra gas blows the lube out and dries everything off again pretty quickly.

Shooting suppressed has its advantages, you just have to weigh the pros and cons.

[gatordev]

At the end of the day, it's a tool. Personally, I don't worry about the wear on my hammer when I'm hitting various surfaces/materials with it. It's going to wear. I just make sure that the hammer I bought is of known quality.

[rob_s]

At the end of the day, it's a tool. Personally, I don't worry about the wear on my hammer when I'm hitting various surfaces/materials with it. It's going to wear. I just make sure that the hammer I bought is of known quality.

Except that it's not a hammer-kind-of-tool, it's a cordless-drill-kind-of-tool.

There is a difference and the difference matters.

[gatordev]

Except that it's not a hammer-kind-of-tool, it's a cordless-drill-kind-of-tool.

There is a difference and the difference matters.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding. What is the cordless drill? The use of a suppressor or the barrel itself? Assuming the rifle starts with an already acceptable, quality barrel (by whatever definition fits the user's needs), then how does using or not using the can matter?

Or to put it another way, I can see the analogy of buying a cheap $9.99 drill and buying a no-name $99 barrel (both not necessarily recommended). But that didn't seem to be the question. Regardless of whether the rifle is suppressed or not, the barrel will wear. That was my main point.

But again, I may have misunderstood, so that's why I'm asking.

[rob_s]

A rifle is not a hammer. It is not a "tool", it's a machine. A hammer works the same at blow one-million as it did on blow one. A rifle does not work the same on round 25,000 as it does on round one. Anything you do that accelerates the negative effects of firing will only decrease that life span.

Cans increase wear and fouling on ARs. If people want to accept that fact because:ninja then that's fine, but it's not the same thing as a hammer.

[gatordev]

If people want to accept that fact because:ninja then that's fine, but it's not the same thing as a hammer.

I'm assuming you meant "...don't want to accept..." iPad strikes again. But for the record, I'm not arguing the point. It just makes sense.

A rifle is not a hammer. It is not a "tool", it's a machine. A hammer works the same at blow one-million as it did on blow one. A rifle does not work the same on round 25,000 as it does on round one. Anything you do that accelerates the negative effects of firing will only decrease that life span.

And that makes sense. But at the end of the day, the cordless drill's battery will wear out, no matter how good the technology. So will the barrel. When it does, regardless of whatever crisis may be going on in the industry, it's not that hard to get a new one and the price to get to that point is still going to be a relatively large amount compared to the actual cost of replacement.

[Fathom_Arms]

I've been doing some research on OSS suppressors. They look very interesting and the reduction of back pressure is a huge plus. No more gas in the face. One big issue I see is that its kind of semi-perminant as you have to use their muzzle break, which really does not look like a muzzle break at all. I'd be worried about damaging it without the suppressor on.

[Thompson]

Never heard of an 80% supressor kit but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. :)

... I feel like there could be a substantial market for that.

Just curious, what are some other good companies out there (for 5.56 that is)? I've heard KAC, SilencerCo, and Giffin Armament thrown around before.

[Gaspipeshooter]

I've been doing some research on OSS suppressors. They look very interesting and the reduction of back pressure is a huge plus. No more gas in the face. One big issue I see is that its kind of semi-perminant as you have to use their muzzle break, which really does not look like a muzzle break at all. I'd be worried about damaging it without the suppressor on.

I have handled an OSS suppressor, and they are built from what I saw as direct thread units. There is a picture on Facebook of just the "flash hider" component on a barrel. The Combined Technology Unit (CTU)™ I handled was actually two housings with two baffles, and a significant part went over the barrel. I need to get back to that shop and see if I can test drive one.

[Uffdaphil]

Why would I choose not having a string of cherry bombs accompany an activity I enjoy? Hmm...

What ninjas may also like has zero bearing on my preference. Alas, a moot point in mandatory noisy MN.

[rob_s]

I'm assuming you meant "...don't want to accept..." iPad strikes again. But for the record, I'm not arguing the point. It just makes sense.



And that makes sense. But at the end of the day, the cordless drill's battery will wear out, no matter how good the technology. So will the barrel. When it does, regardless of whatever crisis may be going on in the industry, it's not that hard to get a new one and the price to get to that point is still going to be a relatively large amount compared to the actual cost of replacement.

I don't actually care about any of that. I've mostly given up on trying to convince people that cans are a waste of time and money because it's not what they want to hear.

But cans accelerate wear on ARs. That is a fact. Wear leads to malfunctions and costs.

However, since most people are not coming to their can desire from logical or reasonable places to begin with, those points are largely moot and I should probably learn to keep them to myself as well.

[madscientist24]

Try looking at this from a different point of view. Some people value the benefits of a suppressor over the inherent disadvantages. To some, the reduction in sound and flash signature is worth the increase in wear and tear and the costs that stem from said wear and tear. Simply put, some people place higher value in things you may not value at all, and everyone has their reasons for doing so. Its like adding aftermarket parts to your car to increase performance; in the long term your cars gonna wear quicker, but to some, the benefit outweighs the detriment.

[specopsscout]

I really like my hearing...at least what's left of it...I wish I had back what I've lost...anything that can mitigate that for those who have access seems like a valuable tradeoff for the need to perform preventative maintenance more often. Parts can be replaced; at least to this point, my hearing damage is a permanent part of me.

[JGifford]

I've been doing some research on OSS suppressors. They look very interesting and the reduction of back pressure is a huge plus. No more gas in the face. One big issue I see is that its kind of semi-perminant as you have to use their muzzle break, which really does not look like a muzzle break at all. I'd be worried about damaging it without the suppressor on.

You have to "align" and "tighten" them, etc. on install. I am much more a fan of something like an AAC Mini 4 or Surefire SOCOM Mini. Backpressure is greatly reduced, and it's KISS. It also weighs less.

I shot about 350-400 rounds the other week, almost all suppressed. My weapon functioned fine even with weak PMC Bronze unsuppressed. I use FIREClean, and run the weapon damp. Not dripping, but not dry at all. A visible sheen on all parts. I was using a fullsize Surefire legacy can.

The ONLY appeal I see to OSS is the lack of backpressure. You will notice that they are in bed with H&K. Mainly, in my opinion, because HK 416's beat themselves into an early grave until AAC opened up the bore on the can meant to run on it. They are very sensitive to backpressure and don't like it.

[JGifford]

I don't actually care about any of that. I've mostly given up on trying to convince people that cans are a waste of time and money because it's not what they want to hear.

But cans accelerate wear on ARs. That is a fact. Wear leads to malfunctions and costs.

However, since most people are not coming to their can desire from logical or reasonable places to begin with, those points are largely moot and I should probably learn to keep them to myself as well.

Yes, a suppressor increases wear on the weapon, no doubt. However, it decreases wear on my body (ears, etc.). I am more valuable than my weapon. I have a weapon to defend myself, not myself to coddle my weapon. A mini-can isn't that much of a lead weight or size increase, and the benefits of it far outweigh the fact that my rifle may take a dump after 10 cases of ammo instead of 12.