Illusion 9 Baffle martial and other questions

[savagetactical]

Seeing that the Illusion 9 has an enclosed baffle design similar to the Silencerco CTA I've become very interested in it. I was wondering what the baffles were made of? I read that he blast baffle was stainless but it did not mentioned what the others were made from. I assume aluminum, but it doesn't say in any place I've read. if they are aluminum, are they going to be coated like the Tirant's aluminum baffles?

What performance level do you expect from it? Will the sound reduction be closer to the Tirant or Evolution? Will it use the same pistons as the Tirant and evolution?

[JasonM]

Performance is going to be closer (the same) to the Evolution since it is a 1.25" design versus the larger diameter (volume) of the Ti-RANT.

blast baffle is stainless, the others are aluminum. I ASSume they are hard anodized since all of AAC's alu baffles have been hard anodized for at least the past 8 years.

I don't know about the piston.

[NickAAC]

Yes, aluminum, hard coat anodized. I've shot the illusion quite a bit with all types of guns and ammo, from .22 to 9mm, and I cannot tell the difference between it and a tirant 9 with Remington 147gr ammo. It does meter most days around the same as the evo, however I've seen it meter just about the same as the tirant did on a glock 34.

When we were at the Quiet Riot shoot recently it sounded great, I could tell no difference between it and shooting my 34 with my tirant.

One thing I love about it is how easy it breaks down for cleaning, with the baffle design they are easier to get out that with tirants, and the alignment when going back together is easier, by far. The only thing that is not that easy is changing the piston, just because it does require the tool. But for me that's not an issue at all.

[savagetactical]

Thanks Nick I appreciate the reply. I wish it had stainless baffles for ease of cleaning, but its not a complete show stopper. I imagine a lot of the perceived noise comes from the ejection port, assuming the tirant has more back pressure than either the evo or illusion since it meters so well. You didn't mentioned if it uses tirant/evo pistons?

[NickAAC]

It does not use Tirant pistons, due to the design, it uses a special piston, no way to get around that and still be able to use the standard sights.

[Sigproshooter]

In the not-so-distant past.......this site frowned on things as subjective as " it sounds good" or"it sounds like my [..] etc.

It instead relied on solid testing with metering equipment and videos. Silvers used to hammer posters, especially manufacturers when they claimed things with NO posted verifiable evidence.

Judging by what you guys posted it sounds like a step backwards for AAC by replacing the TiRant with this new can. It sounds like an Evo with a tool required piston.

[NickAAC]

I did not say that as a unit of measure, I was simply posting my opinion. Numbers can come from third party sources, or from our R&D team.

If you really think about it though, why do you need a tool-less piston change in a 9mm can? I only shoot one thread pitch in 9mm. And that would never be 1/2-28. So I literally will never need to change my piston on my Illusion. It is just a different design than the Tirant, with different features. I really like it, however I still like my Tirant 9's also. It is just another option to go with. Honestly though, the Tirant 45 does so well on 9mm that it makes more sense for most people to get the 45 version. The only downside is size and weight.

[Sigproshooter]

And my point still stands. We used to relish in real data. And really relished it when a manufacturer provided those numbers. With a video.

Like I said earlier Nick, Robert absolutely crucified EVERY singe manufacturer who claimed things or certain "characteristics".

Silencerco does an outstanding job of this to just to name one.

Also,

Why incorporate a tool-needed design?

We as a culture of can lovers hate having to buy tools to take our stuff apart.

Like most people prefer their weapons to not need a tool for field stripping.

FWIW, my TiRant .45 can is impressive. Totally satisfied with it.

And I'm not hating on you Nick, really I'm just making a point because of what you said. And using it as another example of how far we have fallen here on this site.

NOW mostly what you see is spam........... It makes me sad in a way.

[NickAAC]

Just pretend I'm not the manufacturer for half a second. I just wanted to post my opinion. I get what you are saying, but I was just stating my opinion of what I've seen, as a silencer guy, not as a manufacturer.

Now back into the manufacturer zone: the tool comes with the silencer so you won't have to buy it, but I get your point. There's no good way to have a tool-less design with this particular silencer, sometimes we have to sacrifice in certain areas to have other features.

Opinion: I am a can lover and I don't hate having to use a tool to take things apart. Maybe because I was a mechanic and having to use tools is a natural thing. Yea, it's nice not to have to use tools on a gun, I get it. If it could have been tool-less it would have. But I don't think that it is a deal killer on a 9mm silencer(Maybe on a 45 can, if you had multiple hosts in different calibers). If you need a tool to take a bcg out of an AR, that is a different story, as you may need to replace parts to keep it running. I do get your point though.

[JasonM]

It sounds like an Evo with a tool required piston.

that's what it is.

And it does seem most manufs are going away from real testing and numbers... but FWIW, that is OK because manufacturer's numbers have always been skewed and comparisons of numbers and videos from different sources is beyond useless. The straight comparison number videos from Silencerco were as close to useful as possible.

And also the bare dB numbers of a can are only part of the story and really a pretty minor one. All the current crop of cans sound pretty much the same to the ear. the straight dB reduction number is just a sales tool to pull in slightly educated consumers - like the megapixel number on cameras. It is a part of the performance but not indicative of the whole experience.

What we need is something like what this site was when it started - a true testing site. I doubt we'll ever see that though as it takes too much time and money to do right and needs to be almost constantly maintained and updated. You'd need to buy all the products (rather than be given them) to remain somewhat impartial, and you'd need to stay away from the normal BS that seems to crowd this part of the industry. It would be awesome if a group like the A.S.A. would spearhead the testing and maybe some sort of certification program for the industry, but they will never do that because of a. the cost and b. they need companies to be members and a lot of companies would bitch and leave when their products didn't quite perform.

[Sigproshooter]

It sounds like an Evo with a tool required piston.

that's what it is.

And it does seem most manufs are going away from real testing and numbers... but FWIW, that is OK because manufacturer's numbers have always been skewed and comparisons of numbers and videos from different sources is beyond useless. The straight comparison number videos from Silencerco were as close to useful as possible.

And also the bare dB numbers of a can are only part of the story and really a pretty minor one. All the current crop of cans sound pretty much the same to the ear. the straight dB reduction number is just a sales tool to pull in slightly educated consumers - like the megapixel number on cameras. It is a part of the performance but not indicative of the whole experience.

What we need is something like what this site was when it started - a true testing site. I doubt we'll ever see that though as it takes too much time and money to do right and needs to be almost constantly maintained and updated. You'd need to buy all the products (rather than be given them) to remain somewhat impartial, and you'd need to stay away from the normal BS that seems to crowd this part of the industry. It would be awesome if a group like the A.S.A. would spearhead the testing and maybe some sort of certification program for the industry, but they will never do that because of a. the cost and b. they need companies to be members and a lot of companies would bitch and leave when their products didn't quite perform.

Apparently I agree with you since you repeated many of the points I made earlier. I'm glad others feel the same way.

And a BIG +1 on the BS in this industry. It seemed to really rear its' ugly head on this site mostly, not too many years ago.

But there are/were some real diamonds in that pile of topaz and cubic zirconia.

I guess things are always going to change, and sometimes good things come to an end.