Because your stuck with one muzzle device? I haven't purchased the upper yet, I kinda settled on a 14.5 but that was before I decided to get a suppressor.Originally Posted by CleverNickname
Because your stuck with one muzzle device? I haven't purchased the upper yet, I kinda settled on a 14.5 but that was before I decided to get a suppressor.
"Shooting is 90% mental. The rest is in your head." -Nils
Exactly.
Why the 762 vs 556 model?
"Shooting is 90% mental. The rest is in your head." -Nils
I hear good things. @Cdub_NW has this combo I think?
“There is no growth in the comfort zone.”--Jocko Willink
"You can never have too many knives." --Joe Ambercrombie
The Warcomp is a poor choice in general, IMO; it lacks labyrinth seals, so it's not a great suppressor mount, as it will allow some gasses to escape out the rear and thus be slightly louder, but more importantly, it seems that it carbon locks much easier. It's also rather blasty, as it is my understanding that SOCOM switched back to flash hiders after trying out the Warcomp, specifically in the context of CQB. I personally would recommend the 3 prong open tine flash hider; it is a bit stronger than the 4 tine, which is really a thing only because it's clone correct for SOCOM guns, and the open tine flash hiders perform better than the closed tine ones in flash reduction, though the open tine ones do have a ringing that the closed tine ones do not, if that matters to you.
Because they don't make a .223 caliber version, while the Ventum is the only HUB compatible model from HUXWRX at this time.
Given that you want to be able to shoot unsuppressed at times, I would suggest a low backpressure suppressor. There are many out there, but the HUXWRX does seem to be the most popular one, and has only a few weaknesses:
- Their .223 caliber cans currently only use their mounts
- They will give off a visual signature quite easily under night vision, in terms of becoming a noticeably glowing tube with relatively few rounds through it
- They have a more limited lifespan (they used to state a lifespan of at least 20k rounds, with a reasonable goal of 30k on either the FLOW 556k or else the HX-QD 556k, I forget which)
- They are supposedly more maintenance intensive (the manual states it needs a detailed cleaning every 2.5k rounds, while most other centerfire suppressors have manuals stating that you only need to clean at the mounts on occasion, probably to keep the cans from carbon locking)
Since you don't really care about signature reduction in general and are only really interested in the hearing protection aspect, titanium suppressors are also in the picture, as they are much lighter and thus more pleasant to actually handle the gun with. Titanium suppressors are typically a poor choice if visual signature reduction is a priority, as they are prone to sparking (due to titanium shavings being generated during firing and then igniting), but can be great at reducing sound while also keeping a rifle more handy.
I would suggest looking at the SilencerCo Velos LBP 556 or 556k if you really want HUB compatibility, and the HUXWRX FLOW 556k if you don't care. The SureFire SOCOM556-RC3 is also a good choice, albeit possibly overkill for your purposes, and lacks HUB compatibility. The B&T SRBS line is also worth a looksee, as they are also HUB compatible, though it's very new so reviews aren't really out, though B&T has done suppressors for a very long time, so I'm inclined to think that it'll be a quality product. I'm sure there are many other models out there that would work, I'm just not familiar with them, as I don't keep up as much with all the different brands since I'm 100% pot committed to SureFire cans at this point for my rifles.
If I may jump into this conversation, What if you do care about signature reduction? Is the HUXWRX FLOW 556k still a viable option? Or should I look at the Surefire SOCOM RC-2 with a 3 or 4 prong? The Surefire RC-3 sounded like the answer until the internet told me that its signature reduction is supposed to be similar to a flame thrower. I don't know how true that is, but I have seen the cost of the RC-3 and it's painful.
It’s a similar concept to a HUB system that opens you up to multiple mount options while also shortening the overall installed length. To me the ideal would be a YHM Turbo K with a Plan B and a Rearden MFRing 3 prong FH.
RE pin/weld: too much is made of the permanence of that as well. In the grand scheme of what a fully setup rifle costs, paying someone like ADCO $80 to do a quality pin/weld is a drop in the bucket. I find the 1.5” to be quite noticeable in handling. You want to change muzzle devices? Send it back to ADCO and have them cut the old off and pin/weld the new on. But, once you buy a suppressor, you’ll want something that works with your can on the gun anyway, so it being “permanently” on there isn’t a big deal.
Food Court Apprentice
Semper Paratus certified AR15 armorer
Because that is the only model that is hub compatible. They make an adapter for 200 bucks but I’ve yet to see it actually in stock. Plus you are getting a more versatile can with higher internal volume. You can check out pew science for more in depth info on suppression and back pressure if you are interested.
Based off of what I've seen/read, the FLOW 556k is going to have a larger visual signature in terms of flash than an RC2, and probably more than an RC3, but that's much more a function of the RC2 having some of the best visual signature reduction, rather than the FLOW 556k being particularly bad in that realm; it would appear to be fairly middle of the road in that regards. I would be curious to see how that flash performance is if the can is not regularly detailed clean every 2.5k rounds though, as stipulated by the manual.
The larger problem I would have with it is that it appears to have a very large signature reduction under NODs after relatively few rounds (Brass Facts shows how egregious it can get within a mag or two: https://youtu.be/HvNGTcake_o?t=1221), where it becomes a big tube in front of your gun that glows quite brightly; I have seen this phenomenon before in an NVG class with another student's suppressor, but it was far from being that bad. I would be curious to know if this is a trait that tends to be inherent to low backpressure suppressors (kinda like it is for tubeless cans), or if other designs do much better. This issue can be mitigated with the use of a suppressor cover, though I suppose the front end will still be exposed to a certain extent. This is also a fairly niche concern, obviously, but it is a real one. Still, given how much cheaper the FLOW 556k is, especially with pro deal, I would strongly consider it a viable candidate if it's between that and the two SureFire options for most normal civilian applications.
It appears to be that while the RC3 has significant flash when using Warcomps, it is much, much better in terms of flash reduction if using something with the labyrinth seal, with the flash hiders being the recommended choice by SureFire, while muzzle brakes seem to also do quite well anecdotally. I'm sure that more testing will come out.
Even with a rifle tuned specifically for suppressed use, the RC3 can have some advantages over the RC2; the higher backpressure may be mitigated to a certain extent by a smaller gas port, AGB, etc., but there will always be a higher pressure within the bore, which will still allow for more noxious gasses to come back to the shooter compared to a low backpressure suppressor.
As someone who dipped his toe into the world of supressors in the last 12 months, I always find the absolute lack of consensus about what cans and mounts to be fascinating. I made certain choices and am living with them; I would probably pick differently for the first can if I did it again but it’s working fine.
Ken
BBI: ...”you better not forget the safe word because shit's about to get weird”...
revchuck38: ...”mo' ammo is mo' betta' unless you're swimming or on fire.”
Reply With Quote