762 Saker on SilCo website
Moderators: mpallett, mr fixit, bakerjw, renegade
Re: 762 Saker on SilCo website
That's just pure sexiness.
- eastern_hunter
- Silent But Deadly
- Posts: 966
- Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 8:34 pm
- Location: Charleston, WV
Re: 762 Saker on SilCo website
... chuckle ...
Figures ... I have a 5.56 Saker and a 7.62 Specwar on transfer to the dealer now. Would probably have done a Saker in each caliber.
Would have delayed the progress of events by a month, delay to manufacture, and transfer to the distributor.
Oh well ... sigh ...
Figures ... I have a 5.56 Saker and a 7.62 Specwar on transfer to the dealer now. Would probably have done a Saker in each caliber.
Would have delayed the progress of events by a month, delay to manufacture, and transfer to the distributor.
Oh well ... sigh ...
- Bendersquint
- Industry Professional
- Posts: 11357
- Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:19 pm
- Location: North Carolina
- Contact:
Re: 762 Saker on SilCo website
You would never end up with a product then because as soon as that one started the process the next thing would be released.eastern_hunter wrote:... chuckle ...
Figures ... I have a 5.56 Saker and a 7.62 Specwar on transfer to the dealer now. Would probably have done a Saker in each caliber.
Would have delayed the progress of events by a month, delay to manufacture, and transfer to the distributor.
Oh well ... sigh ...
Repeat cycle.
- eastern_hunter
- Silent But Deadly
- Posts: 966
- Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 8:34 pm
- Location: Charleston, WV
Re: 762 Saker on SilCo website
Was able to wait for the Octane 45 after getting an Octane 9.
Would have waited until the 7.62 Saker was available had it not been for the potential change in the rules for Trusts. Sheriff won't sign.
Win some ... draw some ... lose some.
Would have waited until the 7.62 Saker was available had it not been for the potential change in the rules for Trusts. Sheriff won't sign.
Win some ... draw some ... lose some.
Re: 762 Saker on SilCo website
Will a short / compact one ever come out? SDN6 style?
Re: 762 Saker on SilCo website
Like anyone knows the answer to that...wacki wrote:Will a short / compact one ever come out? SDN6 style?
“The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” - Samuel Adams
Re: 762 Saker on SilCo website
Word around the street is that silencerco occasionally posts here.Tango2249 wrote:Like anyone knows the answer to that...wacki wrote:Will a short / compact one ever come out? SDN6 style?
Also, Gary told me about the 7.62 saker 6 months ago. So yes, I expect somebody that reads this board might actually know and be able to talk.
- Henry Graham
- Industry Professional
- Posts: 421
- Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 6:18 pm
- Location: UT
Re: 762 Saker on SilCo website
The Saker 7.62 is 7.5" in length. So about 1/8" shorter than the SDN6.wacki wrote:Will a short / compact one ever come out? SDN6 style?
Rugged Suppressors
Travelers Rest SC
ruggedsuppressors.com
Travelers Rest SC
ruggedsuppressors.com
Re: 762 Saker on SilCo website
Henry,
Any idea how long before the 51T mounts become available for the Saker 7.62?
Thanks
Any idea how long before the 51T mounts become available for the Saker 7.62?
Thanks
- Henry Graham
- Industry Professional
- Posts: 421
- Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 6:18 pm
- Location: UT
Re: 762 Saker on SilCo website
51 tooth mounts are shipping now. The Saker 7.62 uses the same MAAD mounts as the Saker 5.56.John4045 wrote:Henry,
Any idea how long before the 51T mounts become available for the Saker 7.62?
Thanks
Rugged Suppressors
Travelers Rest SC
ruggedsuppressors.com
Travelers Rest SC
ruggedsuppressors.com
Re: 762 Saker on SilCo website
Henry/SWR wrote:The Saker 7.62 is 7.5" in length. So about 1/8" shorter than the SDN6.wacki wrote:Will a short / compact one ever come out? SDN6 style?
Ah.... I was reading AAC's length added stats which is 6.1". What is the 7.62 saker length added?
- Henry Graham
- Industry Professional
- Posts: 421
- Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 6:18 pm
- Location: UT
Re: 762 Saker on SilCo website
The Trifecta flash hider or brake is 2.55" in length so when mounted the Saker 7.62 adds about 5" to that length. I do not know how AAC calculates their length added. Using a plain muzzle or A2 flash hider as the reference would change the calculated length.
Rugged Suppressors
Travelers Rest SC
ruggedsuppressors.com
Travelers Rest SC
ruggedsuppressors.com
-
- Silent Operator
- Posts: 77
- Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 3:59 pm
Re: 762 Saker on SilCo website
I cant find the trifecta muzzle brake anywhere, am I overlooking it? Id want a muzzle brake instead of a flash hider for my AR.
Misspelled and missing words delivered to you via the hunt-and-peck method on my phone
-
- Member
- Posts: 41
- Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 12:41 am
- Location: St. Louis, MO
Re: 762 Saker on SilCo website
Send me one and I'll measure the mounted difference between both.Henry/SWR wrote:The Trifecta flash hider or brake is 2.55" in length so when mounted the Saker 7.62 adds about 5" to that length. I do not know how AAC calculates their length added. Using a plain muzzle or A2 flash hider as the reference would change the calculated length.
Re: 762 Saker on SilCo website
Are you guys still making a YHM Phantom adapter for it?Henry/SWR wrote:51 tooth mounts are shipping now. The Saker 7.62 uses the same MAAD mounts as the Saker 5.56.John4045 wrote:Henry,
Any idea how long before the 51T mounts become available for the Saker 7.62?
Thanks
Is that the "Y-Mount" posted on the webpage?
Last edited by Veritas on Tue Jan 14, 2014 9:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: 762 Saker on SilCo website
Henry/SWR wrote:The Trifecta flash hider or brake is 2.55" in length so when mounted the Saker 7.62 adds about 5" to that length. I do not know how AAC calculates their length added. Using a plain muzzle or A2 flash hider as the reference would change the calculated length.
Ok, now I'm very curious as to how AAC does the mathmagics. Can someone w/ a SDN6 measure theirs? Is the AAC can reflexing back onto the the bbl?
Saker = 7.5” oal - 0.8" threaded bbl overlap / insertion = 6.7" length added.
SDN6 = 7.625" oal - 0.8" threaded bbl overlap / insertion = 6.825" length added ??!?!?!?
I'm not sure how AAC gets to 6.1" length added unless they are reflexing the can.
My saker is in jail but I've got a MAAD mount and calipers on my desk. Looks like 0.8" insertion and the trifecta hider goes nearly flush with the back of the compression mount.
-
- Silent But Deadly
- Posts: 469
- Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 10:19 pm
- Location: Mena, AR
Re: 762 Saker on SilCo website
$1,300 for a 139dB 7.62MM silencer?
Re: 762 Saker on SilCo website
I call it a win.John Titsworth wrote:$1,300 for a 139dB 7.62MM silencer?
SilencerCo says 137 dB and NOT 139 dB.
That said SilencerCo marketing specs puts it an inch and a half shorter and 7 dB quieter than the 7.62 SD. Plunky doesn't have any stats on the shorter SDN6 but the AAC website says that has 25 dB reduction. A 20" remington 700 rifle meters in at 165.4 dB so suppressed with the AAC SDN6 marketing specs puts it at 140.4 dB. Going by what little info I have, this can appears to be an improvement upon it's target competitor from the tech spec point of view.
Long story short is these stats look good to me for an all around do-everything suppressor. It falls in the SDN6 niche and takes it further. If you want bolt action quiet go Specwar and Harvester. (sticking to same company)
SilencerCo positioned this can to attack a difference niche than their SpecWar & Harvester which is the right decision from a business / marketing standpoint. They are attacking the SDN6 which seems to be the dominant AR patter suppressor on arfcom and elsewhere. Why? Because it's the "do everything" suppressor. This saker will be a huge hit.
The Liberty Chaotic will be competing here as well. A short can that will work on 5.56, 308 and 300 BLK. It lacks the gee whiz gadgetry but will be selling at about half the cost.
Re: 762 Saker on SilCo website
AAC has traditionally done their measurements as length added versus an A2 hider… so it's not length added past the bare muzzle, it's a number that is generally around .6" or so shorter than a "length added from bare muzzle" would be.wacki wrote:Ok, now I'm very curious as to how AAC does the mathmagics. Can someone w/ a SDN6 measure theirs? Is the AAC can reflexing back onto the the bbl?
Kick Ass Design
ten:pm media
www.facebook.com/VisualGravy
ten:pm media
www.facebook.com/VisualGravy
-
- Silent But Deadly
- Posts: 707
- Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 7:20 pm
- Location: The South
Re: 762 Saker on SilCo website
SilencerCo has stated before that the hoplon blast baffle doesn't help reduction as it is slanted away from the muzzle.John Titsworth wrote:$1,300 for a 139dB 7.62MM silencer?
The design and material choice was strictly from a longevity point of view.
I'm sure it would drop a little if it had a standard-type cone facing in towards the muzzle.
Re: 762 Saker on SilCo website
From SilCo's website, emphasis added:57fairlane wrote:SilencerCo has stated before that the hoplon blast baffle doesn't help reduction as it is slanted away from the muzzle.John Titsworth wrote:$1,300 for a 139dB 7.62MM silencer?
The design and material choice was strictly from a longevity point of view.
I'm sure it would drop a little if it had a standard-type cone facing in towards the muzzle.
Hoplon baffle reduces harmful erosion (available on Saker556 model only)
Re: 762 Saker on SilCo website
I'd love to know why they dropped the hoplon. Not helpful in 308 due to more complete gunpowder burn over 5.56?
- Bendersquint
- Industry Professional
- Posts: 11357
- Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:19 pm
- Location: North Carolina
- Contact:
Re: 762 Saker on SilCo website
My WAG is that there is far less volume of fire and less rapid fire in a 7.62 can.wacki wrote:I'd love to know why they dropped the hoplon. Not helpful in 308 due to more complete gunpowder burn over 5.56?
I personally haven't seen a worn out 30 cal can(aside from .gov/.mil).
I have seen MANY MANY worn out 556 cans though.
You don't see a ton of ammo wasters in 30 cal(not talking 300BLK).
The Hoplon takes up a bunch of space and may not have had enough benefit shown for the needs of the can.
Everything is a balancing act based on the objectives for a specific production model.
Just my guess as to why.