Are there any plans to test any of the cans made by STWIBS.com.
I have heard very good things about them.
GlenR
Anyone try a STW yet?
Moderators: mpallett, mr fixit, bakerjw, renegade
-
Kevin/AAC
- Elite Industry Professional
- Posts: 3248
- Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 7:47 pm
- Location: Atlanta
- Contact:
The STW suppressors are not really interesting in regards to sound. They seem to be fairly well made and compact in size. But, they generally use grease and are pretty loud, compared to current U.S. standards.
The interesting aspect of the STW suppressors is the one piece baffle module. This is interesting from a strength and manufacturing standpoint, but the one piece baffle module results in a loss of sound suppression. You lose a lot of potential internal sophistication by machining the baffles out of one piece. The STW suppressors will offer adequate sound suppression as long as they are charged with the required grease.
The interesting aspect of the STW suppressors is the one piece baffle module. This is interesting from a strength and manufacturing standpoint, but the one piece baffle module results in a loss of sound suppression. You lose a lot of potential internal sophistication by machining the baffles out of one piece. The STW suppressors will offer adequate sound suppression as long as they are charged with the required grease.
-
silencertalk
- Site Admin
- Posts: 33978
- Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 8:31 am
- Location: USA
-
silencertalk
- Site Admin
- Posts: 33978
- Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 8:31 am
- Location: USA
Here are some links:
http://www.srtarms.com/223can.pdf
Just be careful when interpreting the chart because the results were taken on many different barrel lengths in extreme temperatures of 98 degrees. My results were taken at 50% humidity at 60 degrees, all at the same time.
A short barrel tends to be louder when unsuppressed so the net sound reductions are not comparable. His M4-2000 test was on a standard 14.5 M4, which is good, but the Arms-Tech test was on an Arms-Tech non-standard upper which already has an expansion-chamber in it. I would like to see if that Arms-Tech can, which is rather short, would still 'tie for first' if it was on a normal upper.
http://www.srtarms.com/223can.pdf
Just be careful when interpreting the chart because the results were taken on many different barrel lengths in extreme temperatures of 98 degrees. My results were taken at 50% humidity at 60 degrees, all at the same time.
A short barrel tends to be louder when unsuppressed so the net sound reductions are not comparable. His M4-2000 test was on a standard 14.5 M4, which is good, but the Arms-Tech test was on an Arms-Tech non-standard upper which already has an expansion-chamber in it. I would like to see if that Arms-Tech can, which is rather short, would still 'tie for first' if it was on a normal upper.
-
Kevin/AAC
- Elite Industry Professional
- Posts: 3248
- Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 7:47 pm
- Location: Atlanta
- Contact:
The Arms-Tech upper is pretty badass, in my opinion. I am waiting for one now. The gas system is really interesting in a several regards. First, it is very compact, but due to the type of rifling offer velocity as good are better that the 14.5". Secondly, the barrels will last longer than barrels with standard rifling. The gas system is the most interest part. It not only lowers to cyclic rate to the proper speed, but it also yields 4-7 dB less sound than a stanard M-16 gas system. Very cool product.
-
silencertalk
- Site Admin
- Posts: 33978
- Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 8:31 am
- Location: USA
I would bet some money that the Arms Tech 9.5 inch barrel has the velocity of, well, as 9.5 inch barrel. It should faster than a G36C, and slower than a G36K.
Someone prove me wrong.
The article on it the author did not even test it but apparently repeated what Arms Tech told them even though it would be highly unusual if it were true. I asked Arms Tech what the velocity is, and they would not tell me what their company results where. This led me to believe that their results were likely lower than what was reported in print and they did not want to ruin the glow they were still basking in from the article.
All that being said -- yes -- it looks wonderfully nice, well done, etc. I would be happy to own one but won't unless the company posts their own numbers.
It would be an industry-changing event if the barrel worked as claimed. I spoke to many people about gain-twist polygonal barrels. Rock McMillan, Dave Zediker who writes with David Tubb, etc.
Printed media is very powerful still as so many people have told me about this 9 inch barrel which is as fast as a 14.5, and a 14.5 that is as fast as a 20.
Oh, I forgot to mention. Someone named Chris Bell who owns one published the results of his own velocity tests. They were in direct conflict with the article written about Arms Tech.
Oh, and Arms Tech was quoted as saying 1:7 is bad because it will cause 55 grain rounds to destruct. That is pretty much debuncked as not being true. And if you don't have 1:8 or faster twist, you cannot shoot the 75-77 grain OTM loads which are not considered best for short-barrel carbines.
Here is an AR15.com thread:
http://ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f ... 105&page=3
On page 3, Chris posted this:
User Info IM User Email User Reply Quote
Ok, I got to shoot some today and have partial results for everyony to start looking at. I shot Winchester White Box 55gr, Horbady TAP 75gr, and 36gr Blended Metal. I used the ARMS-TECH COMPAK 16 9.5" upper, 14.5" CMMG M4 upper (1-7twist), and CBE/CMMG 10.3"(1-7twist) upper. I only had time to do Chrono on these, I shot some groups but run out of time.
Temp:56 F
Humidity: 41%
Alt: 865 ft
Baro: 29.94
3-4mph winds at approx 45 deg. into shooters face.
Info provided by Kestrel
Arms-Tech Compak 16 9.5" Upper:
White Box 55gr.= 2386.6 fps (10 shot avg.)
T.A.P. 75gr= 2233.4 fps (10 shot avg.)
CMMG 14.5" MOD4 Upper:
White Box 55gr.= 2774.5fps (10 shot avg.)
T.A.P. 75gr= 2500.5fps (10 shot avg.)
CBE/CMMG 10.3" Upper:
White Box 55gr.= 2491.5fps (10 shot avg.)
T.A.P. 75gr.= 2309.9fps (10 shot avg.)
The Arms Tech upper was slower than a 10.3 inch upper.
I emailed Chris about this, and he said his post caused him to get much hate mail, about how can he burst the bubble of what people thought about the Arms Tech. He loves his upper, but it just did not perform faster for him than a 10.3 inch barrel, let alone a 14.5.
Someone prove me wrong.
The article on it the author did not even test it but apparently repeated what Arms Tech told them even though it would be highly unusual if it were true. I asked Arms Tech what the velocity is, and they would not tell me what their company results where. This led me to believe that their results were likely lower than what was reported in print and they did not want to ruin the glow they were still basking in from the article.
All that being said -- yes -- it looks wonderfully nice, well done, etc. I would be happy to own one but won't unless the company posts their own numbers.
It would be an industry-changing event if the barrel worked as claimed. I spoke to many people about gain-twist polygonal barrels. Rock McMillan, Dave Zediker who writes with David Tubb, etc.
Printed media is very powerful still as so many people have told me about this 9 inch barrel which is as fast as a 14.5, and a 14.5 that is as fast as a 20.
Oh, I forgot to mention. Someone named Chris Bell who owns one published the results of his own velocity tests. They were in direct conflict with the article written about Arms Tech.
Oh, and Arms Tech was quoted as saying 1:7 is bad because it will cause 55 grain rounds to destruct. That is pretty much debuncked as not being true. And if you don't have 1:8 or faster twist, you cannot shoot the 75-77 grain OTM loads which are not considered best for short-barrel carbines.
Here is an AR15.com thread:
http://ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f ... 105&page=3
On page 3, Chris posted this:
User Info IM User Email User Reply Quote
Ok, I got to shoot some today and have partial results for everyony to start looking at. I shot Winchester White Box 55gr, Horbady TAP 75gr, and 36gr Blended Metal. I used the ARMS-TECH COMPAK 16 9.5" upper, 14.5" CMMG M4 upper (1-7twist), and CBE/CMMG 10.3"(1-7twist) upper. I only had time to do Chrono on these, I shot some groups but run out of time.
Temp:56 F
Humidity: 41%
Alt: 865 ft
Baro: 29.94
3-4mph winds at approx 45 deg. into shooters face.
Info provided by Kestrel
Arms-Tech Compak 16 9.5" Upper:
White Box 55gr.= 2386.6 fps (10 shot avg.)
T.A.P. 75gr= 2233.4 fps (10 shot avg.)
CMMG 14.5" MOD4 Upper:
White Box 55gr.= 2774.5fps (10 shot avg.)
T.A.P. 75gr= 2500.5fps (10 shot avg.)
CBE/CMMG 10.3" Upper:
White Box 55gr.= 2491.5fps (10 shot avg.)
T.A.P. 75gr.= 2309.9fps (10 shot avg.)
The Arms Tech upper was slower than a 10.3 inch upper.
I emailed Chris about this, and he said his post caused him to get much hate mail, about how can he burst the bubble of what people thought about the Arms Tech. He loves his upper, but it just did not perform faster for him than a 10.3 inch barrel, let alone a 14.5.
Kevin...
How did your Compak-16 upper work out for you?
I received mine from Dr. Joe this week; I just installed a PRI Gas Buster wide lever CH & a Trijicon RXO1NSN Reflex sight. Hopefully, I'll get some trigger time this weekend.
The upper is totally sano... devoid of any identifying markings other than the T-2 T-4 etc rail positions. The anodized finish is a dull/matte dark charcoal grey/black. The heavy stainless barrel is shrouded by an M4 type HG minus one layer of shielding & topped with a VORTEX FH. It should be interesting to see how accurate the polygonal, gain twist 1:9 rifling is with IMI SS109. The receiver exhibits the typical M4 feedramp cuts. The ambidexterous sling swivel rotates on the barrel just behind the gas trap & resembles a MAC 10 strap hanger. The ROF is claimed to be around 650rpm. It balances quite well & LOOKS totally b@d@$$.
This sucker is just begging for an MD-556/02 CQB suppressor!
How did your Compak-16 upper work out for you?
I received mine from Dr. Joe this week; I just installed a PRI Gas Buster wide lever CH & a Trijicon RXO1NSN Reflex sight. Hopefully, I'll get some trigger time this weekend.
The upper is totally sano... devoid of any identifying markings other than the T-2 T-4 etc rail positions. The anodized finish is a dull/matte dark charcoal grey/black. The heavy stainless barrel is shrouded by an M4 type HG minus one layer of shielding & topped with a VORTEX FH. It should be interesting to see how accurate the polygonal, gain twist 1:9 rifling is with IMI SS109. The receiver exhibits the typical M4 feedramp cuts. The ambidexterous sling swivel rotates on the barrel just behind the gas trap & resembles a MAC 10 strap hanger. The ROF is claimed to be around 650rpm. It balances quite well & LOOKS totally b@d@$$.
This sucker is just begging for an MD-556/02 CQB suppressor!
-
David Hineline
- Silent But Deadly
- Posts: 4289
- Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 11:37 pm
- Location: South Sioux City, NE
- Contact:
I know from personal experience
I know from personal experience that 1-7 twist will explode 55gr and I assume lighter Hornady SX bullets, I know they will explode Speer SST bullets, both have thin jackets. I have seen 55 and lighter bullets with exposed lead back ends, that spun the lead out of the bullet as it flew downrange and by 300yds virtually only the jacket made it to the target. Any of the military type 55grain ammo I have never had a problem with.
NFA shooters blow their load with only one pull of the trigger.
-
silencertalk
- Site Admin
- Posts: 33978
- Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 8:31 am
- Location: USA
1:8 might be the ideal twist for this kind of rifle.
1:7 is good for competition rifles and a close second best for general use.
1:9 rifles can't shoot 77 grainers well, especially if it is cold out or with a silencer with a tight bore. It is recently known that Hornady TAP 75 and Mk262 77 are the best loads for combat and they need 1:8 or faster.
1:7 is good for competition rifles and a close second best for general use.
1:9 rifles can't shoot 77 grainers well, especially if it is cold out or with a silencer with a tight bore. It is recently known that Hornady TAP 75 and Mk262 77 are the best loads for combat and they need 1:8 or faster.
-
silencertalk
- Site Admin
- Posts: 33978
- Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 8:31 am
- Location: USA