Common AR15 cans compared side by side

General silencer discussion. If you want to talk about a specific silenced rifle or pistol, it is best to do that in the rifle or pistol section for that brand.

All NFA laws apply.

Moderators: mpallett, mr fixit, bakerjw, renegade

Post Reply
wacki
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 913
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2012 7:00 pm

Common AR15 cans compared side by side

Post by wacki »

Mulling over sealed AR rifle cans and I made this chart. I'd share.... for posterity. Take it where you want to and I'll constantly tweak it.


Looks like
  • Liberty Torch = Quiet (35 db reduction)
  • Liberty Triumph = Featherweights (12 oz)
  • AAC Mini-4 = small (2.8" length added)
  • AAC 762-SDN-6 = multi-caliber w/ average performance in all categories.
Chart below. Some clarificaitons:
  • All specs are from the manufacturer and is in reduction amount. The exceptions are the specwar which comes from silencershop and is shown in total dB.
  • All cans are sealed except the constitution.
  • Prices are grabbed from silencershop.com for everything but the Constitution.. which came from a local store.
Image

And for those that are shooting 6.8 SPC, 300 BLK super ....

Image



Silencershop youtube review of the Specwar

http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=UUa6E ... XWPk#t=184


Adapter comparison

Image
Last edited by wacki on Wed Sep 18, 2013 6:02 pm, edited 6 times in total.
srt-4_uk
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 512
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:18 am

Re: Common sealed AR15 cans compared side by side

Post by srt-4_uk »

The torch qa does not use a standard flash hider as a mount
User avatar
laxguy59
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 245
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 12:26 pm

Re: Common sealed AR15 cans compared side by side

Post by laxguy59 »

take a look at the new YHM's especially the LT. Really light cans
joshua_
Member
Posts: 21
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:33 pm

Re: Common sealed AR15 cans compared side by side

Post by joshua_ »

...............
Last edited by joshua_ on Mon Sep 16, 2013 11:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
everyusernametaken
Senior Silent Operator
Posts: 149
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2012 7:40 am
Location: Northern VA

Re: Common sealed AR15 cans compared side by side

Post by everyusernametaken »

The Saker and Specwars use Stellite, a cobalt alloy, as the baffle material. The Specwars mount to SWR's version of Silencerco's Trifecta mount, which has a toothy base, but not sure if it's 51 teeth (doubt it, but I've not actually counted them).
wacki
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 913
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2012 7:00 pm

Re: Common sealed AR15 cans compared side by side

Post by wacki »

everyusernametaken wrote:The Saker and Specwars use Stellite, a cobalt alloy, as the baffle material.

Updating the chart now. I see that is listed on the 762 but the 556 says Inconel:

http://swrsuppressors.com/products/rifl ... -556#specs

IS their own site wrong?
Last edited by wacki on Sat Sep 14, 2013 7:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
everyusernametaken
Senior Silent Operator
Posts: 149
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2012 7:40 am
Location: Northern VA

Re: Common sealed AR15 cans compared side by side

Post by everyusernametaken »

wacki wrote:
everyusernametaken wrote:The Saker and Specwars use Stellite, a cobalt alloy, as the baffle material. The Specwars mount to SWR's version of Silencerco's Trifecta mount, which has a toothy base, but not sure if it's 51 teeth (doubt it, but I've not actually counted them).

Updating the chart now. I see that is listed on the 762 but the 556 says Inconel:

http://swrsuppressors.com/products/rifl ... -556#specs

IS their own site wrong?
Hmm, I thought Gary said both Specwars use Stellite, but that was in a conversation about the 7.62, so I guess the 5.56 does use Inconel and 17-4 for blast and the other baffles, respectively.
beanfield33
Member
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 12:41 am
Location: St. Louis, MO

Re: Common sealed AR15 cans compared side by side

Post by beanfield33 »

everyusernametaken wrote:
wacki wrote:
everyusernametaken wrote:The Saker and Specwars use Stellite, a cobalt alloy, as the baffle material. The Specwars mount to SWR's version of Silencerco's Trifecta mount, which has a toothy base, but not sure if it's 51 teeth (doubt it, but I've not actually counted them).

Updating the chart now. I see that is listed on the 762 but the 556 says Inconel:

http://swrsuppressors.com/products/rifl ... -556#specs

IS their own site wrong?

Hmm, I thought Gary said both Specwars use Stellite, but that was in a conversation about the 7.62, so I guess the 5.56 does use Inconel and 17-4 for blast and the other baffles, respectively.
So did I.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=112374&start=25

Specwar's do not have the Hoplon Blast baffle, but the whole stack of both the Specwars and Saker are Stellite.
Specwar 5.56 sits @ 7.3" and Specwar 7.62 is 9"
The expansion chamber in the 762 is where a lot of the length comes from...Remember the Specwar is a real .308 can, and is magnum rated. It is not a 556 can adapted for .30, as a lot of general use cans are these days. it wasn't made for that, or even to compete with that.
Grounded
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 228
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 10:44 am
Location: US of A

Re: Common sealed AR15 cans compared side by side

Post by Grounded »

I am so skeptical of #1 the mics used to record the dB reduction and the ammo used. I'm mic'ing unsuppressed 14.5" 1:7" twist with M855 @ 174dB average. Can's like AAC M4-2000 at 149 dB contrary to claims online.
07/02 behind enemy lines
User avatar
Gary_SilencerCo
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 258
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 12:17 pm

Re: Common sealed AR15 cans compared side by side

Post by Gary_SilencerCo »

The Specwar originally had an inconel blast baffle and stainless baffles after.
After our use of Stellite in the Saker, we determined the performace of stellite was superior to inconel and it made sense to update the specwar. So as of about last november all specwar in 556 and 762
Are 100 percent stellite baffles.
Gary Hughes
SILENCERCO
National Sales Manager
[email protected]
www.silencerco.com
801-417-5384
wacki
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 913
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2012 7:00 pm

Re: Common sealed AR15 cans compared side by side

Post by wacki »

Chart updated.
joshua_
Member
Posts: 21
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:33 pm

Re: Common sealed AR15 cans compared side by side

Post by joshua_ »

..............
Last edited by joshua_ on Mon Sep 16, 2013 11:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Andrew@Silencerco
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 180
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 6:37 pm
Location: Utah
Contact:

Re: Common sealed AR15 cans compared side by side

Post by Andrew@Silencerco »

The MSRP of our rifle cans are as follows

Specwar 5.56 $799
Specwar 7.62 $899

Saker 5.56 (body) $905

MAAD Mounts
Trifecta, 51T, ASR, Etc. $295
Saker 1/2x28 Fixed $150

All of our weights listed include a mount. Feel free to pm or email me if you have any specific questions.
Andrew Herbst
Silencerco/SWR
Customer Service
801-417-5384
[email protected]
User avatar
este
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 2235
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2008 9:22 pm

Re: Common sealed AR15 cans compared side by side

Post by este »

Not for nothing, but any list that doesn't have the SF Socom cans on it.... yea... Not exactly the type of investigative research I'd trust.

I HATE SF's pricing model, but those are pretty arguably one of the best cans out right now.

I like the Saker idea, but there is no 7.62 yet, and they are untested by end users, however Silencerco doesn't make garbage. AAC hasn't had a "new" design since 2008 or so (good idea to drop the Mod '08 from marketing when you're getting to be 6 years out until new cans!). KAC's new can looks good but price/performance/features seems worse to me than SF. YHM imo is for people that aren't doing lifetime purchases, and that design is getting long in the tooth as well. And Liberty is let's say, too niche for me. So, I like your idea of listing it out, but it's far from complete even for the big manufactures.
User avatar
JasonM
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 1483
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 2:51 pm
Location: NoVA
Contact:

Re: Common sealed AR15 cans compared side by side

Post by JasonM »

este wrote:Not for nothing, but any list that doesn't have the SF Socom cans on it.... yea... Not exactly the type of investigative research I'd trust.

I HATE SF's pricing model, but those are pretty arguably one of the best cans out right now.

I like the Saker idea, but there is no 7.62 yet, and they are untested by end users, however Silencerco doesn't make garbage. AAC hasn't had a "new" design since 2008 or so (good idea to drop the Mod '08 from marketing when you're getting to be 6 years out until new cans!). KAC's new can looks good but price/performance/features seems worse to me than SF. YHM imo is for people that aren't doing lifetime purchases, and that design is getting long in the tooth as well. And Liberty is let's say, too niche for me. So, I like your idea of listing it out, but it's far from complete even for the big manufactures.
good info ST. SF, AAC, KAC, SWR, and Silencerco all make excellent product. YHM cans are good in terms of price/performance.

Also I'd add that even considering comparing manufacturer's sound numbers/ putting any stock in them is not worth it.

The equipment needed for properly testing cans is very specialized and many of the smaller shops don't have the right gear, or properly calibrated versions of the gear. Even with the proper equipment (let's compare AAC and Silencerco), tests done on different hosts with different ammos, combined with differences in the setups and atmospheric conditions make them apples to oranges comparisons.

Plus, a couple dB on a rifle can (where the gun's action noise and the bullets' flight noise are the loudest sounds by far) won't make much practical difference.
Kick Ass Design
ten:pm media
www.facebook.com/VisualGravy
User avatar
este
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 2235
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2008 9:22 pm

Re: Common sealed AR15 cans compared side by side

Post by este »

JasonM wrote: Also I'd add that even considering comparing manufacturer's sound numbers/ putting any stock in them is not worth it.
Yea, that.

Really, I think anyone nitpicking over db reduction for their AR has almost no clue what they are getting into, OR, they have lost the meaning of their hobby and now are in a less enjoyable subset based on specifications. Example, I recently heard a SF Mini and a back to back Thunderbeast in person. The Thunderbeast was quieter, no doubt, impressively-quiet actually, but not THAT much quieter. Not so much that I would claim the SF Mini to be inferior, it's shorter and steel, so that's cool. Pros and Cons. Both were tolerable. Both were not hearing safe to the shooter for more than one or two shots, so what is the difference between 2-3db when the action right at your ear is not hearing safe? Bolt guns are quieter and any modern decent can will be fine there too.

When buying a rifle can imo, it was this order of importance for me:

1. Mount (Great QD > Good QD > Thread > Bad QD)
2. Versatility / Host Factors (multiple platforms, calibers, barrel profiles/threads, blowback, etc)
3. Durability / Materials (is it a military tested can or boutique? rated for magnum or short brl?)
4. Lifetime and EOL support (design old? new model coming? company going to support in 10y?)
5. Sound reduction (the secret is... they're all loud on semi autos)
6. Cost (w/ NFA this should ALWAYS BE THE LAST CONSIDERATION, save if you can't afford it)

Of the 100 or so cans from all possible mfgs from every mfg. For my needs (556 QD and 30cal rated for magnum) I pretty much ruled out everything for me (at this point in time!) except SF Socom, AAC unreleased-cans, Silencerco's unreleased-sakers, and that was about it.

Never once did would I even have thought to consider the db rating from the mfg, or really even test results somewhere. I can't hear 2-3db difference and you can't either.
wacki
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 913
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2012 7:00 pm

Re: Common sealed AR15 cans compared side by side

Post by wacki »

este wrote:So, I like your idea of listing it out, but it's far from complete even for the big manufactures.
This is a work in progress este and I'm crowd sourcing. Thanks for the feedback and I'll be updating the chart as much as I can and as accurately as I can.

It won't be perfect but it's an evolving tool that will hopefully help more than it hurts.

I edited the orginal page a little bit for clarity. My prices are from silencershop.com. I'll make bigger changes later this week. Work & woman are soaking up my time.
User avatar
continuity
Elite Member
Posts: 4554
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 6:39 am
Location: Ohio

Re: Common sealed AR15 cans compared side by side

Post by continuity »

I flipped through this thread with the understanding that this site was initiated relative a disturbance in the force about suppressor performance. Wonder about the post.

Why did you not include a YHM unit? YHM is a high level product performer. What about other manufactureres? You want to work with the site coordinators, kool. Touch bases with them before you post your stuff.

Go somewhere else with your s--t. Start another web site. At the initiation, your offerings are... juvenile.
What amount of a man is composed of his own collection of experiences... and the conclusions that those experiences have allowed him to "know" for certain as "Truth"? :Ick
wacki
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 913
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2012 7:00 pm

Re: Common sealed AR15 cans compared side by side

Post by wacki »

Another chart added to the original post.

Thanks to everyone that offered constructive focused feedback.

I'll do some more updates this weekend.
User avatar
este
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 2235
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2008 9:22 pm

Re: Common sealed AR15 cans compared side by side

Post by este »

wacki wrote:Another chart added to the original post.

Thanks to everyone that offered constructive focused feedback.

I'll do some more updates this weekend.
When I made a chart for myself, I added weight to factors so that the ones that were more important stood out. For example, QD was fine, but a QD I could use a precision gun was way more important. So, for example, almost no one uses the AAC 51T on serious precision competition guns, but I have seen people use Surefire and AAC 90T, so that "weighed" more to me than say YHM or AAC's regular mounts.

Same goes for weight, and material. The lighter the better, but I gave an advantage to steel over Ti. On a steel 30cal can for instance I could use that on a 556 SBR. So I made up a multiplier to Ti cans if they were limited. x1.33 penalty for Ti because it wouldn't be as versatile as steel.

Thread mount cans got a pain in the ass penalty if I wanted to use the same can on multiple guns. QD got a penelty if the POI shift wasn't reported to be very repeatable. QD cans got a penelty because there is an extra cost associated with them. Etc.

Again, I finally landed on the SF Socom cans, but that isn't important. My suggestion is you figure out what you need then work back to cans that will fill that, then try and figure out what features are most important and work from there.

A chart that simply says QD, weight, and db reduction wouldn't be very useful to me, but then again, I have a pretty good idea of the products that are available right now.
Post Reply