Suppressor

[Raider4044]

Suppressor

Nobody’s building a 16” rifle to be a speed demon. Lol

Velocity is a trade off for the easier maneuverability of a short rifle, no matter what caliber you’re dealing with.

actual data on chopping a 308 inch by inch ... 243 will be considerably worse ..https://rifleshooter.com/2014/12/308...ty-28-to-16-5/

what do you know .. found to for 243 too ..
https://rifleshooter.com/2016/04/243...h-on-velocity/

I know how barrel length/velocity works, bud.

Nobody said that .243 was the best caliber for the application, but it will certainly do the job.

Like I said in my previous post, the point of a shorter barrel is to make your rifle more maneuverable (especially important when you add a 7” suppressor on the end”. Velocity loss is the trade-off to gain that handiness.

[Raider4044]

post a video ... chrono that 16" 243 ... heck.. just google it. ... nobody in their right minds would build one ... makes no sense !

We’re not all YouTube stars like you. [emoji6]

[savin yours]

I use an AAC SND-6 on my AR-10. It’s heavy but built like a TANK! It is hearing safe, and it can roll around in the bed of my truck and I don’t have to worry about it. My TBAC ultra 7 probly has the best sound and it’s the lightest, but $$$.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[savin yours]

I know how barrel length/velocity works, bud.

Nobody said that .243 was the best caliber for the application, but it will certainly do the job.

Like I said in my previous post, the point of a shorter barrel is to make your rifle more maneuverable (especially important when you add a 7” suppressor on the end”. Velocity loss is the trade-off to gain that handiness.

I read somewhere that adding a suppressor actually adds velocity? It would make sense to me…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[imyomama]

We’re not all YouTube stars like you. [emoji6]

i never claimed to ... but making an ignorant statement saying a can back pressure is directly connected to how well it suppresses is plain false ..

yall act like experts ... spend more time on suppressor forums and less time acting like gun experts on a bowhunting forum ...

you could pick many calibers in ar15 size gun that will outperform a 16" 243 in an ar10 .. and probably be lighter too , and easier to tune and easier on cans .. and quieter ...

i have a remington 700 243 , i had it threaded full length and added an adapter back to it so i could use my 308 can as there was not enough barrel meat to thread it 5/8x24 to begin with for that exact reason ... you cut it and it's not a 243 any more ...

you can talk crap about my videos all you want I do it for fun ... but everything i said on this thread is true and can be verified by any expert ..

and yall acting like experts are misleading this poor guy who thinks you know what you're talking about ... read the articles i linked and you'll see for yourselves you're full of it!

putting a can with the least back pressure over an adjustable gas block is the best thing you can do in an ar10 or ever ar 15 , because it means the gun will run with and without the can on .. get a high back pressure can and as soon as you get it gassed correctly to run suppressed it just won't run without a can any more...

on another note , Savin yours .. you're correct on the SDN6 , i used mine on my ar10 and it's a good can , it even sounds good with no big back pressure issue on my 10.5" 7.62x39 .. old design but still a good performer.

[TX03RUBI]

Where did Raider say anything false? Of course a 16” 243 doesn’t live up to the full potential of the caliber, but a 300 BO is even more useless. All that matters is the person that owns it enjoys it. You tend to forget that energy isn’t the only important factor. Speed is equally important. You can have the exact same energy from a slower heavier bullet and a lighter faster bullet, and I will still take the lighter faster bullet 9 times out of 10. A 100 gr interlock will expand way more reliably at 2600 FPS than a 110 Vmax at 2100. Not only that, but it’ll have better trajectory, which will make it easier to shoot by being more forgiving.

I guarantee you that 16” 243 has killed more hogs in a 6 week period than all 5 of us put together will in a year, and we won’t even get started on dogs. It’s not meant to be some hot rod, but it’s effective for its purposes. At the time it was built you could buy $11 a box federal blue box soft points all day long, which was the main reasoning for it. Like I said it doesn’t have to be the best at anything. It just has to be effective for its purpose, which it is.

[imyomama]

Where did Raider say anything false? Of course a 16” 243 doesn’t live up to the full potential of the caliber, but a 300 BO is even more useless. All that matters is the person that owns it enjoys it. You tend to forget that energy isn’t the only important factor. Speed is equally important. You can have the exact same energy from a slower heavier bullet and a lighter faster bullet, and I will still take the lighter faster bullet 9 times out of 10. A 100 gr interlock will expand way more reliably at 2600 FPS than a 110 Vmax at 2100. Not only that, but it’ll have better trajectory, which will make it easier to shoot by being more forgiving.

I guarantee you that 16” 243 has killed more hogs in a 6 week period than all 5 of us put together will in a year, and we won’t even get started on dogs. It’s not meant to be some hot rod, but it’s effective for its purposes. At the time it was built you could buy $11 a box federal blue box soft points all day long, which was the main reasoning for it. Like I said it doesn’t have to be the best at anything. It just has to be effective for its purpose, which it is.

all i'm saying is picking a 16" ar10 in 243 makes no sense

16" 100gr 243 2488fps. remington core lokt .356bc 1366ft/lbs energy at muzzle. 200 yards ... 2069ft/s 951ft/lbs 8.85inches drop

16" 168gr 308 2466fps remington .475 bc 2289 ft/lbs energy at muzzle
200 yards 2150ft/s 1724 energy. 9.02 inches drop

why go ar 10 platform 16" 243 , when grendel or 6.8 would outperform it in an ar15 16" gun ... and run better...

and if you stick to 308 , the drops are almost identical to 200. and almost double the energy... and it gets worse the further you go ...

the data is the data ... and opinions are opinions ... and i drop pigs with 22lr too , that's not the point ... but wanna be experts that build 16" 243 and claim low back pressure cans don't suppress well are just talking out their ash...

it's just not true.. blast chamber design baffle design can volume and other factors have everything to do with back pressure , and it doesn't mean they don't suppress well ...

i never argued 243 kills good ... it's been my go to caliber for years !

but mis-stating the facts is misstating the facts ... and ballistic calculators don't lie...

i stand by what i said .. his statement about cans is wrong ..

and making a 16" ar10 in 243 is a very poor choice ..

peace... out!

[gingib]

Nobody said that .243 was the best caliber for the application, but it will certainly do the job.

Way better then a darn .300 BO thats for sure. Might as well shoot a BB gub

[Raider4044]

Way better then a darn .300 BO thats for sure. Might as well shoot a BB gub

[emoji16][emoji16][emoji6]

[imyomama]

Way better then a darn .300 BO thats for sure. Might as well shoot a BB gub

16" 100gr 243 2488fps. remington core lokt .356bc 1366ft/lbs energy at muzzle. 200 yards ... 2069ft/s 951ft/lbs 8.85inches drop

16" barnes 110gr tac-tx bc.289 1389ft/lbs of energy at the muzzle 2368ft/sec

200 yards 1857ft/sec 842ft/lbs ..

so 109 ft/lbs difference to be exact

yup ... WAAAAYYYYYY better. ... blasting 100ft/lbs at 200 yards .. at the muzzle the blk. has more energy ... but lower bc ...

so thanks for proving this point ... that 16" 243 is actually LESS power than a 300 blk by 23ft/lbs!

[TX03RUBI]

all i'm saying is picking a 16" ar10 in 243 makes no sense

16" 100gr 243 2488fps. remington core lokt .356bc 1366ft/lbs energy at muzzle. 200 yards ... 2069ft/s 951ft/lbs 8.85inches drop

16" 168gr 308 2466fps remington .475 bc 2289 ft/lbs energy at muzzle
200 yards 2150ft/s 1724 energy. 9.02 inches drop

why go ar 10 platform 16" 243 , when grendel or 6.8 would outperform it in an ar15 16" gun ... and run better...

and if you stick to 308 , the drops are almost identical to 200. and almost double the energy... and it gets worse the further you go ...

the data is the data ... and opinions are opinions ... and i drop pigs with 22lr too , that's not the point ... but wanna be experts that build 16" 243 and claim low back pressure cans don't suppress well are just talking out their ash...

it's just not true.. blast chamber design baffle design can volume and other factors have everything to do with back pressure , and it doesn't mean they don't suppress well ...

i never argued 243 kills good ... it's been my go to caliber for years !

but mis-stating the facts is misstating the facts ... and ballistic calculators don't lie...

i stand by what i said .. his statement about cans is wrong ..

and making a 16" ar10 in 243 is a very poor choice ..

peace... out!

Neither myself nor Raider has mentioned a single thing about back pressure effecting suppression. Trophy did, and neither one of us are backing up that stupid statement so what’s your point? Biden said Afghanistan is safe, but that makes no Fn difference in this conversation.

There hasn’t been a sole that said a 16” 243 is efficient or bada**, so you can drop your facts. The only thing we have said is it is effective for the purpose it was serving. And 308 sucks too it’s all opinion

[imyomama]

Neither myself nor Raider has mentioned a single thing about back pressure effecting suppression. Trophy did, and neither one of us are backing up that stupid statement so what’s your point? Biden said Afghanistan is safe, but that makes no Fn difference in this conversation.

There hasn’t been a sole that said a 16” 243 is efficient or bada**, so you can drop your facts. The only thing we have said is it is effective for the purpose it was serving. And 308 sucks too it’s all opinion

you're right Rubi .. i should have been more specific ... only point i was trying to make is the backpressure comment was inaccurate ..

and when it turned into the bad *** 16" 243 ... i just found it amusing too as the specs and performance out of a 16" are almost identical to the 300blk they say suck so bad ..

hard to keep up with who said what ...

so .. low back pressure cans don't necessarily suck
and 16" 243 = 300blk performance ...

that's all i'm saying!

[Raider4044]

Neither myself nor Raider has mentioned a single thing about back pressure effecting suppression. Trophy did, and neither one of us are backing up that stupid statement so what’s your point? Biden said Afghanistan is safe, but that makes no Fn difference in this conversation.

There hasn’t been a sole that said a 16” 243 is efficient or bada**, so you can drop your facts. The only thing we have said is it is effective for the purpose it was serving. And 308 sucks too it’s all opinion

Come on Anthony, you know you don’t know anything about guns, suppressors, or killing animals, and numbers on paper ALWAYS correlate to real world performance. [emoji6][emoji849]

It’s obvious that all of Imyomama’s “experience” is based off crap he reads online instead of first hand experience.

Not sure why he keeps trying to prove us wrong on the whole back pressure idea when we haven’t even mentioned it at all. I’m figuring Matt was referring to OSS cans in his comment about low back pressure cans not suppressing well, which I would agree with. However, you can’t lump all suppressors with lower back pressure into that category.

[TX03RUBI]

you're right Rubi .. i should have been more specific ... only point i was trying to make is the backpressure comment was inaccurate ..

and when it turned into the bad *** 16" 243 ... i just found it amusing too as the specs and performance out of a 16" are almost identical to the 300blk they say suck so bad ..

hard to keep up with who said what ...

so .. low back pressure cans don't necessarily suck
and 16" 243 = 300blk performance ...

that's all i'm saying!

I’m 16” platforms I can see that being the case. Personally the only reason I would own a 300 BO is in a short barreled application, which a 16” 243 would seriously outperform. Speed kills. 2600 vs 2100-2200 out of a 8-10” black is a big difference. I’ve only ran 6-9” 300 Black Outs and sold my last in 2014. I wasn’t happy with the performance once the novelty of subs wore off. I never have tried a 16” 300. At that point I’d rather be shooting a Grendel. Same can be said for the 16” 243. I don’t have any desire for one, but I know why the one in comment was bought and how well it has performed. It’s OLD though, and I’d be willing to bet he’d do it differently now, but I also know that it’s done everything asked of it and then some. But F toting that thing across a field at night

[imyomama]

Come on Anthony, you know you don’t know anything about guns, suppressors, or killing animals, and numbers on paper ALWAYS correlate to real world performance. [emoji6][emoji849]

It’s obvious that all of Imyomama’s “experience” is based off crap he reads online instead of first hand experience.

Not sure why he keeps trying to prove us wrong on the whole back pressure idea when we haven’t even mentioned it at all. I’m figuring Matt was referring to OSS cans in his comment about low back pressure cans not suppressing well, which I would agree with. However, you can’t lump all suppressors with low back pressure into that category.

just for you , i'll do a video on my suppressed 243

using the slow burning imr 4350 with 95 grain ballistic tip. great combo!

i'd do a video on my 300blk's.. got 5 of them .. roll my own on those too and it's my go to thermal gun with my trijicon reap-ir.
but 300blk suck at pretty much everything ... so i won't bother.

yes i am mis-speaking ... 300blk suck ... 23ft/lbs more energy .. but .308 vs .243 ... .065 of an inch going slower is what makes it kill better and the other one total crap ...

got it!

i've been on silencertalk for over a decade .. maybe longer than tbh even ... even though that site kind of died off now... it used to be the place to go to get suppressor info and talk to actual people who work for manufacturers ...

that's how i bought all my cans , sbr's and F/A over the years ...

i have my own place where i shoot on my private 700 yards gun range ... i do my own load developments and build my own rifles ...

so yeah i give my opinion... and it's all it is ... but sorry i can't take someone seriously when the specific caliber / barrel combo they use actually has lesser performance than the ones they call crap ... it's a fact , not my opinion.

run any chrono / ballistic calculator you want... the result is the same .. the laws of physics are no different on my gun range than yours .