Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Suppressors
22 suppressor?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="QuietTexan" data-source="post: 3065895" data-attributes="member: 116181"><p>Missed this, sorry. </p><p></p><p>It's probably not poor poerforming because SiCo makes good stuff in general, they wouldn't release a bad can. I look specifically at the form of it though. I don't think it's unfair to point out that modular designs have more failure points, more chances for production errors, more tolerance stacking, more chance of baffles being misalligned, etc. I can't think of anything that modularity doesn't end up adding more complexity-failure points over a simpler design. And why? It end up being just as long and heavy as the Sparrow in the rifle form, and it's longer/heavier than dedicated short-form cans like the Bowers Bitty when you split it. It's a play on buying one can and paying one stamp to get three decent designs at once. Some people like that, rock on and get what you want, but there's no dispelling that the modular design comes with weaknesses that non-modular cans don't have.</p><p></p><p>The key design difference between these two cans in particual is that the Sparrow is a monolitic core design where the baffles aren't able to move at all in relation to the mounting point, and the end caps are there to align the tube to the bore, not the other way around.</p><p></p><p>The Switchback (and TBAC Take Down, which I do really like) uses keyed baffles, which is my next prefered design because there's a positive fit between the parts. The Switchback has two separate baffles stacks in two tubes with multiple threaded interface points. I don't dislike the can itself as executed, it's as good an execution of modularity that I know of. But there are still either 2 or 4 threaded interfaces (depending on configuration) and 5 separate threaded parts (back cap, short tube, long tube, coupler baffle, front cap) in a design that aligns baffles to bore using those threaded interfaces. It's a more complex system that to me doesn't offer any benefits over the Sparrow except the ability to split in half and also be a heavy short can.</p><p></p><p>The AB Little Bird is my least favorite design by far. An internally threaded tubes with four moveable baffles. The thread fit is very loose to the point the baffles rattle in the rube. Probably by design so that they can be removed once dirty, but still the fit of it feels very sloppy and doesn't inspire a lot of confidence about alignment given the lenth of thread that's cut in the tube. It's too long, too loose, and doesn't check any of my boxes despite being not modular but "tunable". If it hadn't been a BOGO I would be upset at spending the money on it, the tax stamp was waste enough as it is.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="QuietTexan, post: 3065895, member: 116181"] Missed this, sorry. It's probably not poor poerforming because SiCo makes good stuff in general, they wouldn't release a bad can. I look specifically at the form of it though. I don't think it's unfair to point out that modular designs have more failure points, more chances for production errors, more tolerance stacking, more chance of baffles being misalligned, etc. I can't think of anything that modularity doesn't end up adding more complexity-failure points over a simpler design. And why? It end up being just as long and heavy as the Sparrow in the rifle form, and it's longer/heavier than dedicated short-form cans like the Bowers Bitty when you split it. It's a play on buying one can and paying one stamp to get three decent designs at once. Some people like that, rock on and get what you want, but there's no dispelling that the modular design comes with weaknesses that non-modular cans don't have. The key design difference between these two cans in particual is that the Sparrow is a monolitic core design where the baffles aren't able to move at all in relation to the mounting point, and the end caps are there to align the tube to the bore, not the other way around. The Switchback (and TBAC Take Down, which I do really like) uses keyed baffles, which is my next prefered design because there's a positive fit between the parts. The Switchback has two separate baffles stacks in two tubes with multiple threaded interface points. I don't dislike the can itself as executed, it's as good an execution of modularity that I know of. But there are still either 2 or 4 threaded interfaces (depending on configuration) and 5 separate threaded parts (back cap, short tube, long tube, coupler baffle, front cap) in a design that aligns baffles to bore using those threaded interfaces. It's a more complex system that to me doesn't offer any benefits over the Sparrow except the ability to split in half and also be a heavy short can. The AB Little Bird is my least favorite design by far. An internally threaded tubes with four moveable baffles. The thread fit is very loose to the point the baffles rattle in the rube. Probably by design so that they can be removed once dirty, but still the fit of it feels very sloppy and doesn't inspire a lot of confidence about alignment given the lenth of thread that's cut in the tube. It's too long, too loose, and doesn't check any of my boxes despite being not modular but "tunable". If it hadn't been a BOGO I would be upset at spending the money on it, the tax stamp was waste enough as it is. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Suppressors
22 suppressor?
Top