For my requirements, the GemTech rimfire suppressors do what I want from them. My needs might be different than someone else’s, which is why I suggested that one should identify their own needs and requirements to find the suppressor that best suits them.
If I were to buy a rimfire suppressor today, I would buy a Gemtech Alpine SS.
I agree. 
I have had discussions with some folks in the industry who express confusion as to why anyone would want a QD can. Most cite their experience with LE, SWAT, mil, etc. (especially SWAT) sales. What they miss is the commercial sales market where there are other factors beyond what govt. needs to concern themselves with. One such example was the Noveske Switchblock which someone told me was “stupid, because why would you ever remove the can from the gun”, whereas I think it’s one of the most genius inventions for can users.
Portability, modularity, and the ability to use one product over a broad range of calibers and guns is key in the commercial market. SDN-6 and Switchblock are both fantastic products in this regard.
No, what they are missing is real silencer expeience instead of what they were told or thought they knew in LE or the military.
It all goes back to being in LE or the military doesn’t make you an expert in firearms.
It has nothing to do with need.
Because the benefit of QD far outweighs any thread on for the level of a rifle you have pictured.
Constantly screwing stuff on and off of a high end barrel increases the chances for thread dammage or wear out and dings in the origin of the rifling.
Seriously, what the hell DO you know? 
And Scott- agreed, gemtech also believes in raw aluminum for baffles.
I will chime in as someone who has purchased a can on the other end of the spectrum. I have a stainless YHM Phantom qd can. While this can has not given me any issues and fills my needs fine, I find that I use it very little because of the large weight of the can. It is (just weighed it) 25.5 oz. and I have huge buyers remorse over getting such a heavy can. Both AAC and Surefire have similar sized(and doubtlessly more robust) cans that weigh 8-10 oz less. I find that the best thing about my purchase was that PWS makes a mount for it and at least when the can isnt mounted I have a top performing part on the end of the barrel.
Most thread on can users don’t take them on and off like QD suppressor users do. In fact, I know quite a few thread on suppressor users who use Nordlock washers to make the mating somewhat less likely to easily thread off.
I am firmly in the QD camp however, but can see where thread on might have a very small advantage for certain applications.
QD mounts also take up volume in the suppressor that isn’t taken up with a direct thread mount.
All they are doing is setting themselves up for a baffle strike by never servicing this connection by allowing too much of whatever to build up.
This can trap pieces of cleaning patches, carbon, or whatever.
It’s not a black and white world, despite protests to the contrary. I’m sure Robb has things under control, his attention to detail in other facets of firearm maintenance is pretty good. Other users? Maybe not so much, but then again I can’t see the inside of their gun safe from my house so I really don’t care.
Why would you?
QD mounts are where it’s at, but I can see why a thread on can for a low use, abbreviated firing schedule weapon may be just fine.
I have an AAC can and love it. I would only buy QD cans because it is so convenient.
It seems some of the negative rhetoric directed towards certain companies is internet driven as is the praise of others.
Suppressor manufacturers – some – have been one of the most back stabbing and ego driven groups I have ever been exposed to. I have watched one company ‘borrow’ the next companies ideas, each claim they were first, change this a small percentage to get by with it, add this, move that, threaten lawsuits, etc. I have listened to some of them bitch about and bicker with each other for years. Much of this went on behind the scene and you didn’t always hear about it outside of face to face discussions. I am not around them like I was so it may have changed, but I am not so sure.
IMO, what has affected the most change in the suppressor business of late is not necessarily new design technology as much as better materials and manufacturing technology.
The point I am trying to make is that there are several good suppressor manufacturers out there, and the bashing of this company or that company is unnecessary. Perhaps it is better to state your preference and move on.
Does anyone know who designed the daddy of all quick connect suppressors, the snap on for the MP5? Think he ever made any money off it?
AAC was born out of a brutal lawsuit, so I can see why they are the way they are in that regard. AAC and Gemtech have always been and will always be bitter enemies.
Then you would recommend against a thread-on suppressor for a weapon primarily designed to be surprised (for example, a purpose-built SBR like what Grant’s been designing)? I was figuring if you know you’ll only be shooting the rifle suppressed, a thread-on might be the more efficient attachment method.
-B
Thread on cans seem to work Ok on pistols, but for whatever reason(s) they like to back off when on carbines shot like carbines are supposed to be shot.
Most of the QD mounts don’t add that much extra length, but provide a ton more protection to the crown, threads, etc…and if you use a brake inside the can, it acts like another baffle to prolong the life of the can some.
The only bad thing about QD mounts is that the makers believe they are God’s gift, and charge accordingly. :sarcastic:
I agree that a good QD provides a lot of protection, both for the barrel and the suppressor. I don’t worry about mine coming loose while firing and getting a baffle strike. I don’t worry about wearing out the threads, or accumulated buildup effectively fusing the can to the barrel. I don’t worry about tightening the can while firing, only to have it stuck when things cool down. I’ve also switched to the compensator attachment vs. the flash hider on my M4-2000. I figure that gives better protection against baffle erosion on the first baffle.
Mine stays on one upper 90% of the time, but when I want to put it on the other one, it’s nice to have the QD feature. Any percieved cons of the QD system are far outweighed by the benefits over a thread on.
I also find the squabbles between suppressor companies to be offputting. If you hate each other, fine. Want to fight amongst yourselves or sue each other, fine. Want to start your serial numbers with "FXYZCO, fine. But airing your dirty laundry in front of your customers is childish and unprofessional. Give it a rest already! :rolleyes:
A suppressed SBR that is shot suppressed all the time is unrealistic compared to what goes on in the real world.
Apparently not very much. Weird though, I miss 7 days of work for armorer training and a family funeral two states away and come back to about 2 weeks of work to do. How the hell does that math compute? So I must be doing something right since 1/2 of it is stuff people shipped to me to work on…
My rifle has a stock Remington barrel, was a 24" but John Noveske cut it down four years ago to 20"
I’m certain I’ll shoot out the throat of the chamber long before I ruin the threads, a little oil on the threads and careful theading helps too… The can stays on the rifle 90% of the time. I remove it just a few times per year when doing really heavy duty copper cleaning. Other than that it’s just a bore snake with the can on. This will be getting a 5R barrel sometime in 2011 I’ll probably make it 18" then. Maybe I’ll have it coated like the AAC .300 BLK barrels so it’ll last forever! It’s shooting .60" groups right now with BH 175gr and I rarely am shooting it past 300yds which is why I’d rather have it at 18".
And why would you do that?
It doesn’t have anodized baffles which is mandatory for a .22lr silencer now.
.22lr is notorious for eating away unanodized aluminum baffles.