• Muzzle flash tests -- including SRT Typhoon, ...

Posted: **Tue May 15, 2007 12:13 pm**

Note that this camera could do F3.5 and ISO 1000. I normally do F1.4 and ISO 3200, which is around 16x as sensitive to light.

Posted: **Tue May 15, 2007 3:35 pm**

Very Impressive!!!! We could sure use those over here now. Will you guys be working on a 7.62 version as well? The vortex style on the 240H's work ok but could use improvement.

Posted: **Tue May 15, 2007 3:41 pm**

How does the SRT/Atlas meter in comparison to the M4-2007?

Posted: **Tue May 15, 2007 3:44 pm**

I was going to post to this thread before Goatboy had it shut down....this is really incredible as far as flash hider/silencer comparisons go. This is the kind of information a consumer needs.....I wonder if the folks who make Typhoons have seen it yet

Posted: **Tue May 15, 2007 3:53 pm**

wow, i never thought it would be that big of a difference between aac and other companies in regards to flash suppression.

Posted: **Tue May 15, 2007 3:55 pm**

hawk gunner wrote:Very Impressive!!!! We could sure use those over here now. Will you guys be working on a 7.62 version as well? The vortex style on the 240H's work ok but could use improvement.

Yeah, any plans to offer the flash hiders without the suppressor mount. Not that it's that big of a deal to have some extra acme threads on the outside, but I was just wonderin'.

Chris

Posted: **Tue May 15, 2007 4:06 pm**

We do have non silencer versions in the works.

Maybe Freddy can jump in with an ETA.

Posted: **Tue May 15, 2007 4:54 pm**

Something doesn't look right . . . .

I have a Thread-on typhoon, not the QD mount, but I have NEVER seen anything more than a nice little cone of blue flame. I'll have to take some video of it tonight.

Only time I have seen a ball of fire like that is with Barnaul .308 out of the -k.

Posted: **Tue May 15, 2007 7:26 pm**

cocoboots wrote:wow, i never thought it would be that big of a difference between aac and other companies in regards to flash suppression.

what he said.

The pictures don't lie..............................WOW.

Posted: **Tue May 15, 2007 7:46 pm**

AZDoug wrote: Muzzle flash? All reports and observations show a little tiny blue cone of flame comes out the front of the can.

Doug
SRT Arms

Posted: **Tue May 15, 2007 7:58 pm**

rsilvers wrote:
AZDoug wrote: Muzzle flash? All reports and observations show a little tiny blue cone of flame comes out the front of the can.

Doug
SRT Arms

So did you take pictures with Gemtech, SWR, & Yankee Hill?
Or do you just have a beef with Doug we don't know about?

I still say something doesn't look right . . . .

Posted: **Tue May 15, 2007 7:58 pm**

well, yes, the pictures can be made to lie, or the photographer does lie.

I have never seen anything like that and nodody except Silvers and people that work for AAC have either.

Since Mr Silvers works for AAC, what other conclusion is to be made?

The Army tests didn't show any ball of fire like that. Nor did the Yuma tests.

Play with the lighting, apertures, and all sorts of stuff and you can make a photo show anything you want.

And I have to wonder why are you so preoccupied with this suppressor and trying to put it down any way you can, anyway?

Doug
www.srtarms.com

Posted: **Tue May 15, 2007 8:05 pm**

PCArms wrote:Something doesn't look right . . . .

I have a Thread-on typhoon, not the QD mount, but I have NEVER seen anything more than a nice little cone of blue flame. I'll have to take some video of it tonight.

Only time I have seen a ball of fire like that is with Barnaul .308 out of the -k.

The difference is probably that we did the flash test in the dark; your video appears to be in the daylight. Shoot your Atlas in the dark or at night and check the flash. The video camera that you used does not have the sensitivity to properly capture the muzzle flash. We use the current military ammo for our testing- M855.

Posted: **Tue May 15, 2007 8:11 pm**

Ok, someone else outta duplicate the test....
We have seen AAC's test....someone else step up.

Posted: **Tue May 15, 2007 8:15 pm**

AZDoug wrote:well, yes, the pictures can be made to lie, or the photographer does lie.

I have never seen anything like that and nodody except Silvers and people that work for AAC have either.

Since Mr Silvers works for AAC, what other conclusion is to be made?

The Army tests didn't show any ball of fire like that. Nor did the Yuma tests.

Play with the lighting, apertures, and all sorts of stuff and you can make a photo show anything you want.

And I have to wonder why are you so preoccupied with this suppressor and trying to put it down any way you can, anyway?

Doug
www.srtarms.com

The photos are not altered and you can probably verify the camera settings by loading the jpeg into Canon imaging software. It will give a report of the camera settings. I am confident that the test is reproducible by anyone.

I was preoccupied with the suppressor because you made three claims about it that I believed would not hold up to testing. I wanted to find out. All three (blowback, sound, and flash) were closer to what I predicted than what was claimed.

Posted: **Tue May 15, 2007 8:15 pm**

PCArms wrote:
rsilvers wrote:
AZDoug wrote: Muzzle flash? All reports and observations show a little tiny blue cone of flame comes out the front of the can.

Doug
SRT Arms
So did you take pictures with Gemtech, SWR, & Yankee Hill?
Or do you just have a beef with Doug we don't know about?

I still say something doesn't look right . . . .

We have flash tests of nearly every silencer available. SRT is the only one to publicly state that his can does not have flash, so we did an actual test and posted the results. If you come to the silencer shoot we welcome the same demonstration with your gun and silencer. If your silencer does not mount to the flash hider and is a simple thread mount, that is really a different silencer and the results could slightly vary. But, we can perform a test with everyone present with any silencer.

I don't think that the pictures "look right" either, compared to what was advertised- but, they are correct and repeatable.

Posted: **Tue May 15, 2007 8:23 pm**

AZDoug wrote:well, yes, the pictures can be made to lie, or the photographer does lie.

I have never seen anything like that and nodody except Silvers and people that work for AAC have either.

Since Mr Silvers works for AAC, what other conclusion is to be made?

The Army tests didn't show any ball of fire like that. Nor did the Yuma tests.

Play with the lighting, apertures, and all sorts of stuff and you can make a photo show anything you want.

And I have to wonder why are you so preoccupied with this suppressor and trying to put it down any way you can, anyway?

Doug
www.srtarms.com

Please post pictures from these alleged military tests you always refer to...

This flash is COMPLETELY visible to the eye, even with the lights on in the range. The ATLAS has the worst flash of any fast-attach silencer that we have ever tested.

We do test with military ammo and 10" barrels- worst case scenario.

Posted: **Tue May 15, 2007 8:29 pm**

Well, there you go. It should be easy to duplicate and post the results.

Posted: **Tue May 15, 2007 9:42 pm**

An Atlas-Typhoon suppressor having a larger flash than an A2 flashider? I find that difficult to believe.

Posted: **Tue May 15, 2007 9:53 pm**

tfod wrote:An Atlas-Typhoon suppressor having a larger flash than an A2 flashider? I find that difficult to believe.

I expected it to be more than an A2 after looking it over. However, I did not expect that much.

Posted: **Wed May 16, 2007 12:31 am**

Ive never, ever seen that much flash come out of a can before. WTF?

Posted: **Wed May 16, 2007 12:47 am**

O.K. for the record . . .
Of course, these pictures are not as professional as Roberts, (but more realistic)

This was shot with my Colt M-16 w/ 10" upper, (Not Piston, like the 416)

I did get ONE, larger than expected FLASH, but nothing near what was reported on PAGE-1

Camera was a cheep Nikon in Video Mode, Ammo, was 55gr American Eagle.
I don't have a way to SOUND trigger my Nikon 8800 which will do 1/3000 shutter speed.

Posted: **Wed May 16, 2007 8:24 am**

PCArms wrote:O.K. for the record . . .
Of course, these pictures are not as professional as Roberts, (but more realistic)

They are less realistic for nighttime shots. I can't really entertain them because you did not use manual settings and post the ISO, shutter speed, and aperture used. Also American Eagle is not M855 and might have flash retardant powder. A solid background helps a lot. That being said, your photos show the Typhoon as having more flash than the A2 in about the same proportion as my shots.

Posted: **Wed May 16, 2007 8:38 am**

rsilvers wrote:
PCArms wrote:O.K. for the record . . .
Of course, these pictures are not as professional as Roberts, (but more realistic)
They are less realistic for nighttime shots. I can't really entertain them because you did not use manual settings and post the ISO, shutter speed, and aperture used. Also American Eagle is not M855 and might have flash retardant powder. A solid background helps a lot. That being said, your photos show the Typhoon as having more flash than the A2 in about the same proportion as my shots.

I have to agree here. Your camera if left in "auto" modes will not consistantly reproduce the flash. Its designed to meter and even out the light so shadows are visable and highlights are not blown out. You want to set it manually to be able to properly do a test like this.

Shooting it during the day will totally blow the test as well. I've fired a 11.5" barrel during the day and its nothing all that exciting. At night it's a HUGE fireball that lights up the area around you (this with an A2 hider).

Posted: **Wed May 16, 2007 9:38 am**

Did I deny any of that?

Of course with different Camera settings you can and will get different images:

But, what the EYE sees (or what the EAR HEARS) is all that really matters.

BTW, this was shot with the SAME camera, in daylight