The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Hide > NFA Guns and Gear

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old December 17, 2011, 03:38 PM   #1
Sturmgewehre
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.
__________________
Visit my YouTube channel for reviews, tests and more.
Ex Mea Sententia
Sturmgewehre is offline  
Old December 17, 2011, 09:06 PM   #2
Blackops_2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2008
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 2,586
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.
__________________
"Combined synergy of a man and rifle is matchless, the steadiness of hand and acuity of vision, and finally the art of knowing how to make the rifle an extension of the body, all equate to the ultimate synthesis of man and machine."

"Death smiles at us all, all a man can do is smile back."
Blackops_2 is offline  
Old December 17, 2011, 09:13 PM   #3
Sturmgewehre
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.
__________________
Visit my YouTube channel for reviews, tests and more.
Ex Mea Sententia
Sturmgewehre is offline  
Old December 17, 2011, 09:24 PM   #4
Blackops_2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2008
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 2,586
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.
__________________
"Combined synergy of a man and rifle is matchless, the steadiness of hand and acuity of vision, and finally the art of knowing how to make the rifle an extension of the body, all equate to the ultimate synthesis of man and machine."

"Death smiles at us all, all a man can do is smile back."
Blackops_2 is offline  
Old December 31, 2011, 10:26 PM   #5
V.Oller
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.
F.W. Nietzche
http://www.OmegaTactical.com
NRA Life Member
NRA Certified Pistol Instructor
V.Oller is offline  
Old January 2, 2012, 03:50 PM   #6
Skans
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2008
Posts: 7,894
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.
Skans is offline  
Old January 2, 2012, 07:44 PM   #7
rjrivero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 17, 2008
Location: NW Ohio
Posts: 1,349
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skans
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.
I understand what you're talking about. But what about user serviceable suppressors? Why isn't every single baffle, the end cap, and the body considered an individual suppressor?
rjrivero is offline  
Old January 2, 2012, 08:30 PM   #8
Willie Lowman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 5, 2009
Location: Uh-Hi-O
Posts: 2,427
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?
Willie Lowman is online now  
Old January 2, 2012, 09:43 PM   #9
rjrivero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 17, 2008
Location: NW Ohio
Posts: 1,349
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willie Lowman
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?
That nonsense was dropped by the ATF. They called YHM and told them they could no longer sell their flash hider mounts separately. They said it increased the over all length of the suppressor. They further went on to say they could only sell one mount per suppressor.

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."
rjrivero is offline  
Old January 16, 2012, 09:40 PM   #10
HDTVSELLER
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!!!!
HDTVSELLER is offline  
Old January 17, 2012, 03:44 PM   #11
PTK
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:
Originally Posted by semperfiusmc
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Titsworth
Krink's wont suppress well regarless of how quiet the silencer is, neither does any AK platform. You would think people that make suppressors would know this...
We made a Krink hearing-safe with our Kestrel. We made an 10.5" AR machine gun hearing safe too. We also made a user-serviceable 5.56 can out of all stainless that weighs about the same as a Phantom, is shorter than an M4/2000, and quieter than a Halo that I guarantee will have a longer service life than any any welded suppressor. And in the even of baffle strikes or structural failures, we can replace components without having to slice the suppressor apart. I guess that since we don't know the rules and boundaries we are able to surpass them.

As far as the JUST AS GOOD AS subthread, I don't know what as good as means. We produce a great suppressor that can be disassembled and cleaned at a great price. Just in testing our Kestrel I've personally become convinced that user-serviceable centerfire suppressors are going to be a requirement just as rimfire suppressors are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emilio
No inconel but he says he would replace warn baffles , I woner about high power cans being able to unscrew but it's a good price and nice ideas.

There are multiple sealing surfaces. In all the testing we've done we haven't had a single can come apart during firing, even with sustained machine gun fire.
To which my reply was...

Quote:
Indeed, those are exceedingly bold claims. Point of fact, if you made a 5.45x39 AK with short barrel (by "Krink" do you mean AKS74-U?) hearing safe you would be the first in the world to do so.

What dB at the ear were you testing? 1m to the side of the muzzle?

What grade of stainless? Any HT on the materials?

Surpass the rules and boundaries - generally smaller manufacturers will duck these questions. Be unique and different and actually answer.
No answer was posted. I remain quite dubious.

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:
Originally Posted by http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=standards&p_id=9735
Code:
TABLE G-16 - PERMISSIBLE NOISE EXPOSURES (1)
______________________________________________________________
                            |
  Duration per day, hours   | Sound level dBA slow response
____________________________|_________________________________
                            |
8...........................|                    90
6...........................|                    92
4...........................|                    95
3...........................|                    97
2...........................|                   100
1 1/2 ......................|                   102
1...........................|                   105
1/2 ........................|                   110
1/4  or less................|                   115
____________________________|________________________________
Seems that 115dB for a duration of only 15 minutes per day is the highest level that is permissible by OSHA. However, OSHA has this to say about impulse/peak sounds...

Quote:
Originally Posted by OSHA
Exposure to impulsive or impact noise should not exceed 140 dB peak sound pressure level.
Keeping in mind that a short barreled 5.45x39 AK is over 165dB (168dB, near enough) without a silencer, any "hearing safe" silencer for this platform would need to reduce the noise signature by over 25 dB!

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.
PTK is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.08799 seconds with 7 queries