|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
December 17, 2011, 03:38 PM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 12, 2006
Location: Indiana
Posts: 4,212
|
Affordable suppressor for both the AR15 & AK74
I had a chance to test out the new Huntertown Arms Kestrel 556 suppressor on my Colt M16 and on my Fuller AKS-74U. The can works on both and is very robustly built.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=texEzvXnmdk Let me know if you have any questions. |
December 17, 2011, 09:06 PM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 20, 2008
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 2,654
|
Nice to see affordable suppressors. Whats the reduction Db rating?
I saw you said it's comparable to 22lr that's pretty good. A friend and I haven't heard a rifle fired suppressed and where wondering how loud it actually is. Since my SM556 is perma welded i'm subject to the KAC NT4 or the Gemtech Halo and I've read it's advised to still wear hearing protection when firing a suppressed rifle. Will have to try and make the AAC shoot this year.
__________________
Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me." |
December 17, 2011, 09:13 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 12, 2006
Location: Indiana
Posts: 4,212
|
I would imagine it's advisable to wear hearing protection when shooting a suppressed rifle.
I would say it's about like a Ruger 10/22 being fired with standard velocity ammo. I found it to be comfortable without hearing protection. I also don't wear hearing protection when I do things like mowing my lawn, and I know some people do. So everyone has different comfort levels. It's not like a good can on a 45 ACP with subsonic ammo and running the can wet in terms of how quiet it is. |
December 17, 2011, 09:24 PM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 20, 2008
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 2,654
|
Im not one that wears protection around loud equipment either. My friend was just telling me how he wants to be able to shoot his AR without hearing protection or he doesn't really have any interest in a suppressor. Me i'm sort of the opposite sure i would like to run it without hearing protection but the other advantages of a suppressor are still in my interest, recoil reduction, and almost no flash signature is a huge plus IMO. As i'll be using my all of my current rifles suppressed eventually and plan on using them to predator hunt at night. Eventually using night vision as well.
__________________
Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me." |
December 31, 2011, 10:26 PM | #5 |
Member
Join Date: March 28, 2001
Location: South Florida
Posts: 43
|
I have to say a suppressed center fire rifle is still MUCH louder than a suppressed rimfire rifle.
I found this out the first time I fired my own AAC M4-2000. It's still pretty loud but not quite loud enough to get my ears ringing.
__________________
That which does not kill us only makes us stronger. /Nietzche http://www.OmegaTactical.com NRA Life Member NRA Certified Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun Instructor |
January 2, 2012, 03:50 PM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2008
Posts: 11,132
|
I looked at the video. I'm wondering whether ATF will claim that some of those suppressor parts are technically "suppressors" even though they are not the serial numbered parts. I.e. any .556 parts laying around while you have it mounted on an AK might still technically be suppressors. And, if you only have one registration, then you may be in possession of an illegal suppressor, via the un-used parts.
|
January 2, 2012, 07:44 PM | #7 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2008
Location: NW Ohio
Posts: 1,399
|
Quote:
|
|
January 2, 2012, 08:30 PM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 5, 2009
Location: Uh-Hi-O
Posts: 3,006
|
I think Skans is talking about the mounts used for the M16 and the Krink.
To my knowledge the ATF went after YHM declaring their mounts to be part of the suppressor but they have not made any similar action toward other manufacturers. Just about everyone in the suppressor biz has a quick mount offering. I don't know how the YHM suppressor mount thing was resolved. Anyone know how that worked out? Were the mounts ruled to be part of the suppressor?
__________________
"9mm has a very long history of being a pointy little bullet moving quickly" --Sevens |
January 2, 2012, 09:43 PM | #9 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2008
Location: NW Ohio
Posts: 1,399
|
Quote:
They couldn't defend their position. Probably because of all the different suppressors and mounts already out there. How would they know for sure that the mounts are "legal or not" since they are not serial numbered and have no way of tracking how many are out there already? There was no way to "enforce" these new rules they made up, so they dropped that particular issue. This was in 2009. I have never seen a letter from the atf asking YHM to cease selling, nor have I seen a letter from the ATF saying it was okay. In any respect, they are now doing it again. My point in my questioning, is much along those lines though. The ATF has long held that any suppressor part is a suppressor in and of itself. I believe this to be completely unenforceable as well. When you take a suppressor apart to clean, you have a bunch of "suppressor parts" that by the ATF's Logic are "suppressors in and of themselves." So, why are they even allowed to make suppressors that come apart? In the same vein, I have a Trident-9 that has a booster for pistol use, and a solid mount for 1/2-36 threaded 9mm barrels, but other barrels are threaded 1/2-28 so I had to get a mount for them too. Why are those adapters not considered "suppressors" as well? Why is it you can buy pistons for the Osprey .45 that fit the 9mm? What about using a .45 Can on a left handed thread barrel like HK? All of these require different pistons, and no one gun will use all three pistons. Are the pistons themselves, all parts of the Osprey .45, considered suppressors in and of themselves? They can't have it both ways. Either each part is a suppressor as they say it is and therefore they need to regulate them as such, or they are parts that when put together constitute a "suppressor." |
|
January 16, 2012, 09:40 PM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 16, 2007
Posts: 248
|
i might have missed it but where can i find what the .556 or 7.62 cost ? the website just shows .22s
__________________
What would the world be like without guns!!!! |
January 17, 2012, 03:44 PM | #11 | ||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: March 20, 2008
Posts: 442
|
We were discussing these silencers the other day on another forum (http://www.silencertalk.com/forum/vi...hp?f=5&t=81207 is where I quote from, here...)
Quote:
Quote:
It is also interesting to note that there are no dB numbers available on any of the products offered by this manufacturer. "Hearing safe" is not a measurement, but OSHA has guidelines. Quote:
Quote:
If anyone on here truly believes that a short barreled semi- or full-automatic centerfire rifle can be reduced in noise signature (including action noise, remaining blast, excess gas coming from the action, excess gas leaving the silencer, everything) to 140dB or under, then I've got a bridge for sale. Please, wear earplugs. EDIT: To make things clear, I'm not trying to bash the manufacturer. I simply don't want anyone to damage their ears thinking that what they have is "hearing safe", especially since this entire tirade assumes that at no point during the day is there any exposure to SPL of 90dB or higher. In modern life, this is a completely incorrect assumption. Truly, hearing loss will hit every single one of us. Why encourage it? Last edited by PTK; January 17, 2012 at 03:51 PM. |
||||||
|
|