SHOT Show Coverage Thread

[SilentMike]

The integral 10/22 barrel has two sets of ports in the rear chamber and a single set of ports in the forward chamber. The monocore is machined into the barrel (16.25" OAL, no SBR), and the crown is easily accessible for cleaning. The tube indexes via an alignment stud on the barrel, and the whole ensemble is held together with a front nut with an Element-ish spanner hole pattern that tensions the barrel when tight. Assembly/Disassembly literally takes about 30 seconds every 1K rounds of use. The tube is Ø.875, so it will be more than compatible with any/all stocks made for Ø.920 barrels.

Does anyone need an intergral? No. Today's muzzle cans are just that efficient. However, based on the response to the intergal 10/22 and the MK III we brought to gauge customer interest, there are plenty of folks that are attracted to the clean look and short OAL of the intergral.

[Kevin/AAC]

Change my mind on the part about had to clean the muzzle/crown. It's way easier than trying to clean a can with a fixed tube like the Thompson machine intergral where the core removes but the muzzle is just floating in there by itself, 6" or so in a hole.

I forsee this design being copied by just about everyone making integrals.

I believe everyone will copy this too, but we are patenting everything we can. So, when the patents are approved we will stop everyone else.

[Kevin/AAC]

It's a great idea. I'd love to see them do an integral like this on a Rem 700 scaled up to 300BLK.

We did. Two versions were in the "backroom" at Shot. They are on the way.

[Bowen1911]

I drew something like this up months ago when toying around with ideas of what to Form 1


god dammit.

[SilentMike]

I drew something like this up months ago when toying around with ideas of what to Form 1


god dammit.

This happens more often than you think. I saw a .22 can at shot that assembles in a manner that our R&D team discussed in a brainstorming session six months ago.

[Bowen1911]

I drew something like this up months ago when toying around with ideas of what to Form 1


god dammit.

This happens more often than you think. I saw a .22 can at shot that assembles in a manner that our R&D team discussed in a brainstorming session six months ago.

I don't doubt that one bit. when thinking of baffle designs for my form 1 .22 silencer, I "came up with" an omega baffle without realizing it was already done, and I said a while back that headlights should turn with your car, and now some cars have that.

would be a pain in my ass if i had a business doing this, but thankfully i am in college, and it doesn't matter too much

[tomz34]

It's a great idea. I'd love to see them do an integral like this on a Rem 700 scaled up to 300BLK.

We did. Two versions were in the "backroom" at Shot. They are on the way.

Awesome, cant wait for a Rem 700 integral 300 BLK.

[Bandit]

Not really.

If you turn the core upside down...the baffles point the other way...

The design gets you everything. It fixes most things that are wrong with integrals.

16" oal
monocore
ported barrel
access to muzzle crown for proper cleaning.
light weight
Higher cost

Fixed
If the barrel or suppressor needed replaced you would have to replace everything instead of separate components right ?

Change my mind on the part about had to clean the muzzle/crown. It's way easier than trying to clean a can with a fixed tube like the Thompson machine intergral where the core removes but the muzzle is just floating in there by itself, 6" or so in a hole.

I forsee this design being copied by just about everyone making integrals.

I believe everyone will copy this too, but we are patenting everything we can. So, when the patents are approved we will stop everyone else.

I doubt you have any worries there. Most guys are still building them same way using factory components.
It's like buying a TV with the DVD or tape player installed making the unit one piece. If the DVD or tape player goes out you have to take the whole thing to a shop to get the player fixed and you have no TV till it's back home.

A 20% difference in design would be all it takes to avoid infringement on a patent.

[silencertalk]

A 20% difference in design would be all it takes to avoid infringement on a patent.

Um, no. Violating a single independent claim on a patent is all it takes to be in violation.

[delta9mda]

A 20% difference in design would be all it takes to avoid infringement on a patent.

Um, no. Violating a single independent claim on a patent is all it takes to be in violation.

correct we are not talking about copyright.

[este]

Ugh, I'm going to not say a thing about the patents except that while you may think it's impressive to talk about how it's going to be patented, it does nothing to help the consumer, ME. There may be some good ideas there, and maybe some worth patenting, but don't brag to me about how you're going to lock it down because that does nothing FOR me, only hurts me as a consumer. Not saying it's not your right, that I wouldn't, that you shouldn't, just saying don't highlight that point as a feature becaus it is not. I have seen well paid patent attorneys come up with some bullshit patents before. Ones that clearly violate common use, and post-date existing designs. I'm sure Rem has well paid lawyers.


Back on topic... With the two sets of porting does high velocity ammo become subsonic? What is the idea between the two sets? Is it just for sound? Does standard velocity ammo take a big hit? Since the outer tube is indexed, take means iron sights will work correct? Why not go .920?!?

Is the pistol integral similar? When can we see photos of that?

[Mageever]

I drew something like this up months ago when toying around with ideas of what to Form 1


god dammit.

So did a lot of other Form-1 builders. Guys have been talking about this method for years in the Silencersmithing forum. Ruger MKII barrels have been done as well this way. Even I've posted drawings of this. AAC will be really reaching if they want to claim any IP here.

[Kevin/AAC]

Incorrect. If we don't protect our products with patents, then they will never get the the commercial marketplace. Patent protection allows us to stop other companies from copying our technology without the them having to endure the expensive R&D process. So, this does help our commercial customers.

The integrals will be finished and available by Q3.

Ugh, I'm going to not say a thing about the patents except that while you may think it's impressive to talk about how it's going to be patented, it does nothing to help the consumer, ME. There may be some good ideas there, and maybe some worth patenting, but don't brag to me about how you're going to lock it down because that does nothing FOR me, only hurts me as a consumer. Not saying it's not your right, that I wouldn't, that you shouldn't, just saying don't highlight that point as a feature becaus it is not. I have seen well paid patent attorneys come up with some bullshit patents before. Ones that clearly violate common use, and post-date existing designs. I'm sure Rem has well paid lawyers.


Back on topic... With the two sets of porting does high velocity ammo become subsonic? What is the idea between the two sets? Is it just for sound? Does standard velocity ammo take a big hit? Since the outer tube is indexed, take means iron sights will work correct? Why not go .920?!?

Is the pistol integral similar? When can we see photos of that?

[Kevin/AAC]

I drew something like this up months ago when toying around with ideas of what to Form 1


god dammit.

So did a lot of other Form-1 builders. Guys have been talking about this method for years in the Silencersmithing forum. Ruger MKII barrels have been done as well this way. Even I've posted drawings of this. AAC will be really reaching if they want to claim any IP here.

Ha! On what part?

[Cnacki]

Incorrect. If we don't protect our products with patents, then they will never get the the commercial marketplace. Patent protection allows us to stop other companies from copying our technology without the them having to endure the expensive R&D process. So, this does help our commercial customers.

The integrals will be finished and available by Q3.

Awesome news!

I can't wait to see the Mark III, the 10/22 looks impressive.

[kaotic504]

The integrals will be finished and available by Q3.

Q3 2011? Bc we all know how eta's can slip. Just sayin'. Gotta bust your chops just a bit. I'll probably order one if I haven't started a 10/22 build by then.

[Mageever]

So did a lot of other Form-1 builders. Guys have been talking about this method for years in the Silencersmithing forum. Ruger MKII barrels have been done as well this way. Even I've posted drawings of this. AAC will be really reaching if they want to claim any IP here.

Ha! On what part?

I was thinking of the baffles being cut into the barrel stock. I'm not sure exactly what 'technology' you'll be claiming, but machining the core out of barrel stock was a pretty logical conclusion since most Form-1'ers don't have the ability to bore that long of a hole and the barrel already had one right there waiting for you. I'm not saying this isn't a great idea, because it is. That part of it just isn't new tech and I apologize if I inferred something else. Love the rifle too by the way--you guys did a great job on it.

[este]

So.... Two Quarters is the new metric?

[GRANDPA07]

Today's patents are more inclusive than yesterdays. They are made broad and inclusive of manufacturing techniques as well as the finnished outcome. If worded corectly milling, porting, means of milling and porting, degree of angles and shapes, finnished product etc etc etc become revelant to a patent. In essence, if done right, it creates a monopoly for the patent holder. There is an obvious entitlement to the patent holder, but often times the consumer is has to settle because an existing patent is un-challenged or improved upon by a minor technicallity of manufacture or outcome. Generally elaborate patents only protect one entity and limits the consumer of progression. I applaud AAC as this is how an integral should have and could have been built from day one. If someone could put a leash on Kevin's cheap shots I could envision myslelf on buying one of these.

[Kevin/AAC]

So.... Two Quarters is the new metric?

It's cool that you are the new hater. I was missing the others...

[GBI96]

Kevin,

Back to the integral. I am not asking for an exact quote, but is there an estimated range of a price point for one of the new 10/22 integrals whenever they do come out?

[este]

So.... Two Quarters is the new metric?

It's cool that you are the new hater. I was missing the others...

If you were here I'd give you a hug. Read above. I'm not only a big fan of the product, I'll be first in line to buy one of these if it is half as well done as I think it is. Your products (should) speak for themselves.

Besides, my Two Quarters Metric is a joke, you know all about those right? It's not me you should be calling a hater. I'm sorry if you didn't find it funny.... I did Anyone who has ever worked at a small company has at some point fallen into the two weeks trap. I think it's great there is a realistic time line for this new product.

[SilentMike]

Back on topic... With the two sets of porting does high velocity ammo become subsonic? What is the idea between the two sets? Is it just for sound? Does standard velocity ammo take a big hit? Since the outer tube is indexed, take means iron sights will work correct? Why not go .920?!?

Is the pistol integral similar? When can we see photos of that?

The ports are there for sound and velocity control. Our goal is to have all commonly available .22 ammo (bulk pack WalMart stuff) exit the silencer at 10% below the speed of sound under most environmental conditions. With that said, this is still a .22 rimfire. Users will most likely have to try a variety of .22 LR offerings to find one that gives them satisfying reliability, accuracy, and sound suppression with their specific AAC 10/22 intergral.

Going with an Ø.875 tube enables us to buy a commonly stocked tube size and perform minimal modifications to the tube. It also ensures the tube will clear any barrel channel made for a Ø.920 barrel.

The MK III currently has a removable monocore (Prodigy-ish) that captures the tube against the receiver. The tube is rotationally indexed like the 10/22, and a set of standard Ruger adjustable sights will be present. The ported barrel is surrounded by a diffuser that is easily removed with a wrench for accessing the barrel ports.

[este]

Back on topic... With the two sets of porting does high velocity ammo become subsonic? What is the idea between the two sets? Is it just for sound? Does standard velocity ammo take a big hit? Since the outer tube is indexed, take means iron sights will work correct? Why not go .920?!?

Is the pistol integral similar? When can we see photos of that?

The ports are there for sound and velocity control. Our goal is to have all commonly available .22 ammo (bulk pack WalMart stuff) exit the silencer at 10% below the speed of sound under most environmental conditions. With that said, this is still a .22 rimfire. Users will most likely have to try a variety of .22 LR offerings to find one that gives them satisfying reliability, accuracy, and sound suppression with their specific AAC 10/22 intergral.

Going with an Ø.875 tube enables us to buy a commonly stocked tube size and perform minimal modifications to the tube. It also ensures the tube will clear any barrel channel made for a Ø.920 barrel.

The MK III currently has a removable monocore (Prodigy-ish) that captures the tube against the receiver. The tube is rotationally indexed like the 10/22, and a set of standard Ruger adjustable sights will be present. The ported barrel is surrounded by a diffuser that is easily removed with a wrench for accessing the barrel ports.

This all sounds so sick. I'm very glad I waited on buying an integral or barrel for my 10/22.

What does the porting do to std velocity cci? I realize that if it's set up for bulk, cci may be slowed too far to be useful.

I know some mfg make a note to say cci mini-mags are recommended but I guess that's just for reliability?

I guess the tube is aluminum?

Any idea if you guys will be selling the Ruger uppers or just complete guns? I like the 22/45 way more than the MKIII.

I hope AAC can stay around the price of a barrel and a can, if that's the case I'm down for sure.

[JasonAAC]

Back on topic... With the two sets of porting does high velocity ammo become subsonic? What is the idea between the two sets? Is it just for sound? Does standard velocity ammo take a big hit? Since the outer tube is indexed, take means iron sights will work correct? Why not go .920?!?

Is the pistol integral similar? When can we see photos of that?

The ports are there for sound and velocity control. Our goal is to have all commonly available .22 ammo (bulk pack WalMart stuff) exit the silencer at 10% below the speed of sound under most environmental conditions. With that said, this is still a .22 rimfire. Users will most likely have to try a variety of .22 LR offerings to find one that gives them satisfying reliability, accuracy, and sound suppression with their specific AAC 10/22 intergral.

Going with an Ø.875 tube enables us to buy a commonly stocked tube size and perform minimal modifications to the tube. It also ensures the tube will clear any barrel channel made for a Ø.920 barrel.

The MK III currently has a removable monocore (Prodigy-ish) that captures the tube against the receiver. The tube is rotationally indexed like the 10/22, and a set of standard Ruger adjustable sights will be present. The ported barrel is surrounded by a diffuser that is easily removed with a wrench for accessing the barrel ports.

This all sounds so sick. I'm very glad I waited on buying an integral or barrel for my 10/22.

What does the porting do to std velocity cci? I realize that if it's set up for bulk, cci may be slowed too far to be useful.

I know some mfg make a note to say cci mini-mags are recommended but I guess that's just for reliability?

I guess the tube is aluminum?

Any idea if you guys will be selling the Ruger uppers or just complete guns? I like the 22/45 way more than the MKIII.

I hope AAC can stay around the price of a barrel and a can, if that's the case I'm down for sure.

i think the whole shebang is stainless. rifle and pistol.

Last i heard will be barrels and complete guns. My money would be on complete guns first, then barrels once production catches up.