The reason why I ask is that I’ve always heard that if a weapon is going to be 100% suppressed, use a break instead as a sacrificial baffle- but I haven’t seen too many people posting about damage to their cans from using flash hiders. I hate muzzle breaks, and even though my cans currently stay on their hosts 100% of the time, I’d still like the flexibility to run them unsuppressed. My Mini-4 that I ran on my 14.5 and 11.5 seems to be holding up well after several thousand rounds, and I’m waiting for a SOCOM 556-RC to get out of ATF jail right now.
So is this really an issue or just something that has gone from theory to “fact” because everyone else does it?
There was a Group guy that posted pictures of his/their SF cans that showed significant erosion over on Arfcom. It was in one of the clone threads, I think the Mk18 one. I’m pretty sure they were the new SF cans, not legacy too.
That thread is almost 300 pages long, any idea of about when it was discussed? I’d love to read about that…
ETA: I just tried to find it in that thread, and it’s basically Airsofters who “upgraded” to real weapons. 95% of it is just idiots fapping to pics of SF/Rangers/SEALs and their asinine attempts to make “clones” of military weapons yet they can’t remember to close the goddamn ejection port cover. Jesus Effing Christ.
I rarely follow the thread. His name was Jshepherd (??). I just remember it because it was one of the few diamonds in the rough. Arfcom, much like M4C, has a lot of signal/noise ratio. It’s more prevalent there b/c of the larger audience/looser moderating/rules. Clone threads, by their very nature, inspire some good discussion and an even greater instance of idiocy.
Go count the AR picture thread here. Within the past 4 pages, there are a half dozen people with their ejection port cover left open…
Not that arfcommers need or deserve defending, but we don’t all need to fear an NCO’s chastisement.
Which is more absurd? a). the person who believes a sandstorm will kick up during a kitchen counter photo-op, b). the person who frets about whether other posters will give him e-approbation regarding his ejection port’s status, or c). someone who fetishizes SOF.
If you’re nitpicking which minuscle part makes a SOCOM Block II / Mk18 an exact clone, spend thousands of dollars and god knows how long painting and then weathering parts- some going to far as to add fake rack numbers- you can take a second to close your ejection port before take a pic of your rifle you’re showing off to the net.
It’s not the act, it’s the fact that they get uber anal about small details yet forget a simple one.
Or some people view the dust cover being closed at all times along the lines with overcleaning/lubrication/etc that was mythologized or beat into them by the .mil. It’s a picture thread, made by 98% civilians on the internet.
But we’re getting away from your original OP. I can’t point to specific posts but from what I understand overall through use and other, more knowledgeable people that I’ve read…a brake will cut down on erosion with high round count cans.
I tried to find his posts on errosion in the new SOCOM can’s but no joy. I had heard someone else mention it before as well, but even my Google-fu is letting me down. I would think that there would be more attention to the issue considering they’re popular suppressors but I guess not…
I have both a FH and Brake for it, but I’m still leaning toward the FH unless I can find proof that SOCOM’s are more susceptible to errosion than other high end cans. I’ve found a ton of pics of other cans baffle errosion (mostly M42K’s) and none seem too bad.
A lot of noise in this thread… I though we were talking baffle erosion. :sarcastic:
Anyway… I think the brake helps a little. I also think the baffle erosion is like gas port erosion. It somewhat plateaus. If you take the can off to shoot a lot, run a flash hider mount. I used to do that a lot when I first got a can. Now, I set the gun up to run suppressed and leave the can on. (with a break mount)
Generally no. It’s cheaper to replace the entire can most of the time… And the tard fight between the Old AAC group and Gemturd put and end to remaking a damaged can with the original serial number.
Eroded baffles still work fine. Shoot… people run over calibered cans all the time.
That said, I believe a SureFire rep responded to those pics in another thread stating that the can still had “lots of life left.” I can’t waste any more time trying to find it, but if I stumble across it I will update this post.
It is true that a brake will act as a sacrificial baffle. But I’m in the camp that I prefer to have the option to fire without a can and I see no reason to have a brake for my uses. I also like to clone military-issued rifles, so you can take my words with a grain of salt (i.e., since I’m apparently a chump); I think over-stylized billet ARs are teh ghey. No, I don’t put fake rack numbers, ebay dot-matrix stickers, and airsoft parts (e.g., ATPIAL) on my guns.
Also, SureFire will warranty their SOCOM cans and replace the baffle stack for a fee (I want to say ~$600). That’s cheaper than a new can and avoids the additional tax stamp, waiting time, etc.
A lot of the issue, in my opinion, is that many people buy these guns and want them to remain “new” forever. They seem to have unrealistic expectations about parts wear and the fact that barrels, bolts, and suppressors are consumable items. These are the same people for which “fit and finish” and the preservation thereof are primary concerns. And, incidentally, they tend to post more about these “issues,” making mountains out of a molehills.
Just my $.02.
ETA: my statements regarding surefire warranty of cans is based on secondhand info. If I can find a source to substantiate that point, I will update it. My apologies in advance.
Wow, that erosion after 10k rounds is nothing. Is that on a Mk18 SBR or clone? That’s actually really impressive, and logically, the SF rep is right. That can has many more thousands of rounds left on it.
I mean, we use .308 cans on 5.56 guns all the time with only a slight downgrade (~10%?) in noise reduction, and those cans have an aperture that is roughly 33% larger by linear measurement (even more by area I’m sure). The aperture on that can’s blast baffle is barely worn when thinking of it in those terms, with only a small chip in it; not to mention it looks like these cans were beat on at full auto with SSF triggers from the context of the post. Additionally, the rest of the baffles in front of it are likely fine to boot.
I run nothing but flash hiders on my guns, but have no barrel less than 14.5". I was worried before about burning my SOCOMs. Not so anymore. That picture is just damn impressive.
I believe that is on his issued M4A1 with some additional use on a CQBR upper.
ETA: here is another pic of his kit. I’m not sure if it’s the same can pictured in the thread, but it is clear that it’s before the 14.5" upper was retrofitted with the RIS II. So, I would bet the wear is from use on both uppers.
Thanks! That’s exactly what I was looking for!
After looking at the pics I can say I’ll stick with the flash hider- that erosion isn’t nearly as bad as I had heard, especially considering a bit was on a 10.5 and probably full auto. While I don’t baby my personal rifles, I’m a lot harder on my issue M4, so I assume this is also the case as well. It should take me 3-5 years to get 10,000 rounds through her, so we’ll find out how accurate this is…
PS- I don’t have a problem with clones, I have one set up like my M4, but those guys on that thread just took it to an insane OCD level. Plus I was pissed I couldn’t find that post I was looking for and I get grumpy, I digress…
It still seems really impressive to me. Am I wrong in that? 10,000 rounds, some on an SBR, some on full auto, and the aperture has barely widened? It just looks scaled and like a chip came out. I mean, yeesh, I’m impressed at least.
Surefire’s 50k demo cans seems like a completely reasonable number based on that picture.
