Supressors; 8 Quick Magazines and they are toast?

Burke888 · Post by **Burke888** » Mon May 25, 2009 5:47 pm

Hey guys,

I was over on another forum and saw a post about an AAC M4-1000 not being able to handle 8 quick magazines run through it. Basically a guy records a video of 8 thirty round magazines being fired through an HK416 equipped with an AAC M4-1000. Not only does the suppressor "fail" this test, but the author of the video goes on to say:

I feel that no silencer can pass this test.

Is this true?
My gut reaction is that the author is full of s**t, because clearly special ops teams are running suppressors. If a suppressor can't handle 8 quick 30 round magazines then I really doubt these things would continue to be used by elite troops if they fail after 240 rounds?
Can anyone shed some light on this?

Link to the video for those interested:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjiDtrA3P8A

Keaner · Post by **Keaner** » Mon May 25, 2009 6:08 pm

That is very interesting, and looks similar to the test that Robert/AAC was talking about a while ago where some competitor's (Gemtech maybe?) can failed after 1000 rounds. At the time, it was requested that AAC release video of their cans accomplishing this test, which I don't remember ever seeing.

I would love to hear what was different in this test? It does seem like the can is failing way before the rocksett fails, and that is just the final nail in the coffin.

Robert-- I am very interested in any response you have to this one, especially based on their test methodology and conclusion.

Stickman · Post by **Stickman** » Mon May 25, 2009 6:35 pm

Is this the video where the can came loose and had an end strike? If so, it would have nothing to do with the can failing, and everything to do with someone failing to attach it properly.....

Davo5o · Post by **Davo5o** » Mon May 25, 2009 6:39 pm

This is the Oldest!

Where the hell have you guys been???

Keaner · Post by **Keaner** » Mon May 25, 2009 6:44 pm

Not into suppressors I guess...

Looks like the video was posted a year ago, I only started getting into the suppressor scene about 3 months ago so :-/

Post by **silencertalk** » Mon May 25, 2009 7:23 pm

That can in the video was an older plug welded can and it is not as strong as the cans which have full circumferential weld on each baffle.

You would never want to do 8 quick mags on a 10 inch barrel with a suppressor that you want to keep. That being said, AAC does this 4 times in a row and does 8 quick mags on a 10 inch barrel, waits about 10 minutes, does it again, waits about 10 minutes, does it again, waits about 10 minutes, and then does it again. I cannot think of any failure with a can the way they are made now.

As for John saying no can will survive it -- it depends on how you define 'survive.'

John defines it as 'after the test, there is no reduction in sound performance.' In that case, he may be right. I would expect any can to be louder after that kind of stress.

However, we define 'passing' as having no failure such as parts breaking. In that sense, I know AAC can pass and believe KAC can.

TypeR632 · Post by **TypeR632** » Mon May 25, 2009 11:53 pm

John treated that can like a dirty whore!!!!

Selectedmarksman · Post by **Selectedmarksman** » Tue May 26, 2009 12:33 am

Ah, the infamous "Buddy" test. Whatever can you use, it's best not to abuse it unless your life depends on it. Also, it's best not to discharge a firearm with something living downrange unless you want it to cease living.

The vid does make me a strong believer in perm-attaching QD mounts, though.

ArevaloSOCOM · Post by **ArevaloSOCOM** » Tue May 26, 2009 1:21 am

Glory hole

Dog running around.

Outsydlooknin75 · Post by **Outsydlooknin75** » Tue May 26, 2009 7:27 am

In a firefight I can see running 8 mags back to back, but in normal every day use..... come on 240 rounds just as fast as you cna shoot them? Are you even doing anything more than being a bullet hose at that point?

studly do-right · Post by **studly do-right** » Tue May 26, 2009 9:36 am

As far as I know the M4-1000 was never designed for full auto use (correct me if I'm wrong rsilvers), so in my opinion it should never be in a fire fight on a select fire weapon. I can't see any reason why you would need to have a suppressor that would take the abuse of full auto fire and come out as good as new because at that point your ass is on the line. Everything becomes disposable when you life is at stake.

That being said, I prefer the M4-Duece just because it will last longer for me and whatever I put it through. I like to know that my equipment is going to last longer than i may need ever need it to.

And I'm sure that there are a lot of cans that will take more abuse than this guy can put them through and still come out on top, such as the ones that are designed for machine guns.

renegade · Post by **renegade** » Tue May 26, 2009 10:17 am

Burke888 wrote:Hey guys,

I was over on another forum and saw a post about an AAC M4-1000 not being able to handle 8 quick magazines run through it. Basically a guy records a video of 8 thirty round magazines being fired through an HK416 equipped with an AAC M4-1000. Not only does the suppressor "fail" this test, but the author of the video goes on to say:

I feel that no silencer can pass this test.
Is this true?
My gut reaction is that the author is full of s**t, because clearly special ops teams are running suppressors. If a suppressor can't handle 8 quick 30 round magazines then I really doubt these things would continue to be used by elite troops if they fail after 240 rounds?
Can anyone shed some light on this?

8 quick magazines will also destroy other parts on the gun such as a gas tube or barrel. This is way outside the sustained rate of fire for an M16. Piston guns will fare better, but they are not standard issue to all troops yet.

JohnnyC · Post by **JohnnyC** » Tue May 26, 2009 5:11 pm

Wasn't the consensus that the mount started to spin off the barrel causing baffle strikes anyway? As such was it not a failure of the user not a failure of anything related to the can?

1_ar_newbie · Post by **1_ar_newbie** » Tue May 26, 2009 6:54 pm

JohnnyC wrote:Wasn't the consensus that the mount started to spin off the barrel causing baffle strikes anyway? As such was it not a failure of the user not a failure of anything related to the can?

That is how I recall it.

AAA · Post by **AAA** » Tue May 26, 2009 7:43 pm

I think you'd be surprised how small amount of rounds troops actually carry.
They generally don't do mag dumps back to back.

The normal dismounted load (ie. when your on foot) for a 48 hour patrol for a rifleman is 1 full mag in your weapon then 6 spare mags, plus a 200 SAW belt. Don't forget they're also carry things like Night Vison, food, water, breaching equipment a handgun and ammo for that.
SF guys may carry more, but I doubt it's more than 10 mags. That's a lot of extra weight to hump around.

kalikraven · Post by **kalikraven** » Tue May 26, 2009 7:52 pm

The sad thing is how fast it all gets shot. A few weeks ago I was playing OpFor as a M240 Gunner. I went thru 600 rounds in under 10 minutes in one small firefight. If you want a super durable can then get two made for a beltfed.

Crosshair · Post by **Crosshair** » Tue May 26, 2009 8:56 pm

AAA wrote:I think you'd be surprised how small amount of rounds troops actually carry.
They generally don't do mag dumps back to back.

My cousin says they are far more likely to carry extra grenades than extra 5.56 ammo when they go out. Both 40mm and M67.

Makes sense. Why go into a room where you know there are BGs when you can just chuck in a nade and mop up whatever is left. Especially with all the brick construction.

studly do-right · Post by **studly do-right** » Wed May 27, 2009 10:28 am

Crosshair wrote:My cousin says they are far more likely to carry extra grenades than extra 5.56 ammo when they go out. Both 40mm and M67.

Makes sense. Why go into a room where you know there are BGs when you can just chuck in a nade and mop up whatever is left. Especially with all the brick construction.

No, they don't.

Two reasons: Those "bricks" they're made of, not the equivalent of good old cinder blocks. They're only slightly tougher than dried mud. It's not going to end well for you.

Second, what do you think the media would do with footage, or even just a story, of US troops breaking into a some "poor innocent" Iraqi civilian's house and smearing his wife and kids onto the walls with a hand grenade while they slept?

Once upon a time, your way was the best way, but sadly that era is over.

JAPII · Post by **JAPII** » Wed May 27, 2009 1:53 pm

Outsydlooknin75 wrote:In a firefight I can see running 8 mags back to back, but in normal every day use..... come on 240 rounds just as fast as you cna shoot them? Are you even doing anything more than being a bullet hose at that point?

i would think if one were involved in a firefight necessitating the use of 8 mags back to back a supressor would be superfluous...

Davo5o · Post by **Davo5o** » Wed May 27, 2009 7:56 pm

JAPII wrote:
Outsydlooknin75 wrote:In a firefight I can see running 8 mags back to back, but in normal every day use..... come on 240 rounds just as fast as you cna shoot them? Are you even doing anything more than being a bullet hose at that point?

i would think if one were involved in a firefight necessitating the use of 8 mags back to back a supressor would be superfluous...

Except at night.

Post by **silencertalk** » Wed May 27, 2009 9:20 pm

studly do-right wrote:As far as I know the M4-1000 was never designed for full auto use (correct me if I'm wrong rsilvers)

That is wrong. The M4-1000 is likely the most durable silencer you can buy, aside from the M4-2000 class AAC or KAC. It has double the wall thickness of the Ops Inc, has stainless which is about 20% stronger, and has Inconel 718 in it, and full circumferential welding. It is one MOFO durable can. It would be a $900+ silencer except we charge less for it.

kalikraven · Post by **kalikraven** » Thu May 28, 2009 12:04 pm

Good then I should be happy with mine...

Burke888 · Post by **Burke888** » Fri May 29, 2009 2:00 am

JohnnyC wrote:Wasn't the consensus that the mount started to spin off the barrel causing baffle strikes anyway? As such was it not a failure of the user not a failure of anything related to the can?

What is the proper way to keep the mount on the barrel? I thought AAC includes some Rocksett with their mounts?

Is the Rockset no longer sufficient? If so, what would be a good alternative for hard use?

Crosshair · Post by **Crosshair** » Fri May 29, 2009 7:07 am

studly do-right wrote:No, they don't.

Two reasons: Those "bricks" they're made of, not the equivalent of good old cinder blocks. They're only slightly tougher than dried mud. It's not going to end well for you.

Second, what do you think the media would do with footage, or even just a story, of US troops breaking into a some "poor innocent" Iraqi civilian's house and smearing his wife and kids onto the walls with a hand grenade while they slept?

Once upon a time, your way was the best way, but sadly that era is over.

OK, all I know is that he said they try to pack extra grenades more than 5.56. He didn't go into detail so I was speculating.

We already have smeared plenty of Iraqi civilians from the news stories I read. The media doesn't care too much about them. They only seem to be concerned with US wounded/dead.

1_ar_newbie · Post by **1_ar_newbie** » Fri May 29, 2009 10:24 am

Burke888 wrote:
JohnnyC wrote:Wasn't the consensus that the mount started to spin off the barrel causing baffle strikes anyway? As such was it not a failure of the user not a failure of anything related to the can?
What is the proper way to keep the mount on the barrel? I thought AAC includes some Rocksett with their mounts?

Is the Rockset no longer sufficient? If so, what would be a good alternative for hard use?

When Rocksett is properly installed it is very sufficient.

Supressors; 8 Quick Magazines and they are toast?

Supressors; 8 Quick Magazines and they are toast?

Re: Supressors; 8 Quick Magazines and they are toast?