Close
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 35
  1. #21
    Missing Man on a Milk Carton islandermyk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    5,936

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hoser View Post
    I blame the trigger presser.

    Load the bi-pod harder and focus on your rear bag.

    Best advice is to get a really accurate 22 and shoot it a lot at 50-100 yards. One little itty bitty flaw in what you are doing will move the bullet quite a ways compared to a centerfire.
    Believe me... I know that there was an extreme lack of focus in my shooting that day. Was to excited with the new can and all
    For some reason I was paying more attention to other things like the felt recoil, how much back pressure I was getting from shooting the Krink suppressed and .45's (with the Ti-rant) which got me started with this.

    All I can say is.... You guys are awesome!
    Whore monger Mike!

    Slinging coconuts since ever since...

  2. #22
    RIP - IN MEMORIAM - You will be missed
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Aurora
    Posts
    720

    Default

    Any movement between the can and the muzzle adapter is going to be bad for accuracy . The problems with AAC's mounts goes way back , that's why they keep adding teeth to the ratchet surface but the issue is in the tapered seat dimensions . QD cans will never be my first choice in a precision rifle can .

    But back to the part where the rifles group tightened back up when the fundamentals were followed really is an indication of shooter error . The biggest causes of vertical dispersion are bipod preload , rear bag technique , and cheek weld issues .

    I shoot all 3 of my precision rifles exclusively suppressed , 260 , 308 , and 338 with a 30P and 338BA . None of them will throw shots out of the group regardless of how fast I shoot them . One of the best groups I've fired out of my 260 was 5 rounds in about 30 seconds while sharing a chrono and was more interested in the numbers than group size , put all 5 into just over 1/2 inch at 200 .

    The reduction of recoil and the way the recoil impulse is changed with the suppressor on can and will lead to sloppiness in the fundamentals because the rifle is more forgiving to shoot but they are just as important .

    There is no reason to sacrifice accuracy for the noise reduction .

  3. #23
    Missing Man on a Milk Carton islandermyk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    5,936

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by C Ward View Post
    Any movement between the can and the muzzle adapter is going to be bad for accuracy . The problems with AAC's mounts goes way back , that's why they keep adding teeth to the ratchet surface but the issue is in the tapered seat dimensions . QD cans will never be my first choice in a precision rifle can .

    But back to the part where the rifles group tightened back up when the fundamentals were followed really is an indication of shooter error . The biggest causes of vertical dispersion are bipod preload , rear bag technique , and cheek weld issues .

    I shoot all 3 of my precision rifles exclusively suppressed , 260 , 308 , and 338 with a 30P and 338BA . None of them will throw shots out of the group regardless of how fast I shoot them . One of the best groups I've fired out of my 260 was 5 rounds in about 30 seconds while sharing a chrono and was more interested in the numbers than group size , put all 5 into just over 1/2 inch at 200 .

    The reduction of recoil and the way the recoil impulse is changed with the suppressor on can and will lead to sloppiness in the fundamentals because the rifle is more forgiving to shoot but they are just as important .

    There is no reason to sacrifice accuracy for the noise reduction .
    I believe it... the time I started shooting with the brake on.. I got spoiled... and having the can on... the spoiled just got rotten I kid! I kid! It is always a learning process every time I go out.

    Quote Originally Posted by C Ward View Post
    There is no reason to sacrifice accuracy for the noise reduction .
    Now imagine if there were a way to get the best of both worlds
    Whore monger Mike!

    Slinging coconuts since ever since...

  4. #24
    RIP - IN MEMORIAM - You will be missed
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Aurora
    Posts
    720

    Default

    There is , call TBAC

  5. #25
    I am my own action figure
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wheat Ridge
    Posts
    4,010
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by C Ward View Post
    There is , call TBAC
    I think you will find a lot of people who have analyzed suppressors from the firing position and from an engineering perspective prefer Thunderbeast. It is not coincidence.
    Good Shooting, MarkCO

    www.CarbonArms.us
    www.crci.org

  6. #26
    Missing Man on a Milk Carton islandermyk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    5,936

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by C Ward View Post
    There is , call TBAC
    Quote Originally Posted by MarkCO View Post
    I think you will find a lot of people who have analyzed suppressors from the firing position and from an engineering perspective prefer Thunderbeast. It is not coincidence.
    I shall look into this for the next rifle... Thanks fellas
    Whore monger Mike!

    Slinging coconuts since ever since...

  7. #27
    Paper Hunter ssgenuine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Parker, CO
    Posts
    133

    Default

    Hey Mike, did you ever figure out what the issue was? It would be cool to get together for a shoot and see how the diff cans compare. I got the SAS Arbiter Ti and the Thunderbeast 30p1. Both are thread on. As far as the breathing goes, my son has assured me that it doesn't matter at all "There is 20 rounds in the mag for a reason". I suppose there is some logic to it since if one were really, really good at shooting all rounds would go through the same hole and that would just be a waste of ammo.
    Thanks for looking here.

  8. #28
    Missing Man on a Milk Carton islandermyk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    5,936

    Default

    Yeah.. the real problem is my shooting



    Having J and the rest nerd out on me I figured out that my shooting needs some work... shoot slower, learn to use a rear rest bag (I've been using a mono-pod), etc.. the rifle with and without the can is a whole lot more accurate then I will ever be. With the can on the rifle it has been very consistent which proves my shooting sucks

    Whore monger Mike!

    Slinging coconuts since ever since...

  9. #29
    The "Godfather" of COAR Great-Kazoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Washboard Alley, AZ.
    Posts
    48,073

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MarkCO View Post
    I think you will find a lot of people who have analyzed suppressors from the firing position and from an engineering perspective prefer Thunderbeast. It is not coincidence.
    That's because Zak and Ray are super anal (in a nice way) and expect the best for not only for them, but TBA customers too. They don't have a"let's sell some cans" They have a lets see what works consistently, then make it better.
    The Great Kazoo's Feedback

    "when you're happy you enjoy the melody but, when you're broken you understand the lyrics".

  10. #30
    Guest
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Colo Spgs
    Posts
    603

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by J View Post
    To ellaborate on MarkCO's point (NERD ALERT!).

    Yes there will be a bit of pressure, but less than 2 bar (2x standard atmospheric pressure). Consider that a 308's max SAMMI is about 4,500 bar in the chamber. It will be somewhat lower than that by the time it gets to the can, but you are still talking thousands of time higher pressure during the shot than with residual pressure.

    If anything, the heating of the barrel would be the first place to have a significant reaction. Between heating, and swelling and a slight change in its metallurgic stiffness (K = M/phi) wherein metal becomes more maliable as it heats up, you would see changes several fold more significant than pressure changes. I'm still not sure its enough to cause these big differences, but it may be measurable as some fraction of an MOA on a target. Changing the Length and end weight on a barrel (with a can) could conceivably produce more change due to heating:

    Lets consider a more direct approach at determining the stiffness of the barrel,

    K = nAE/L. N is a constant for a given material, considering the boundary conditions and A is a constant considering the cross sectional area of the material, and E is a constant considering the elasticity of the material (all constant for this problem as we aren't swapping the material). As we don't want a value but merely a rough picture of the system, lets assume n=1 and A=1 and E=1 for this material, and throw them out, so we have (K=1*1*1)/L, therfore K (stiffness) = 1/L (length. So we see as Length goes up, our stiffness goes down. This proves there will be some change in POI due to a change in stiffness by adding length to the system.

    Yes there is a flaw in this logic, as n,A,E are different between the supressor and the barrel. But we could come up with some approximation for the suppressor as a smaller increase in the length of the barrel that will behave the same. So we still know L is going up. Therefore, stiffness goes down.

    Lets also consider that the amount of deflection is related to the moment of inertia vs the moment of force applied to the barrel. Again we have K=M/phi. Lets rewrite that as phi = M/K, where phi is the amount of barrel deflection, M is the moment of force applied, and K is the stiffness. We know that K has gone down, which means a bigger phi, deflection. But we have not yet considered M. M is the summation of all moments of force throughout the system, an integration from start to end for those with some calculus background. Lets consider than the barrel will have the same forces applied to it with can on, or can off. This can be ignored. We can therefore account (to a second order approximation) for only the moment of force applied to the can. While smaller than that applied to the barrel, because only pressure puts force on the can rather than the projectile itself, this smaller force will be enhanced by its radial distance from our pivot point (considering the barrel as a pivot around the action, as it moves more closely to a radial system than a linear system). And some copy/paste from my formula editor is the radial equation for moment of inertia in a radial system. As we can see, the moment of inertia increases exponentially with increased radius. Because radius is squared, we get large gains as we increase the radius upon which the force is applied. So even the smaller forces there play a role due to increased radius. So now we have phi = M/K, where K is getting smaller, and M is getting bigger both as heat increases, so we may see some noticeable observations depending on how much each change. Running rough numbers, I come up with something at least measurable, but even my most overly liberal estimations put it just over 1MOA.

    Conclusion: You get better accuracy when you go slow, because everyone gets better accuracy when they go slow and take their time on a shot.

    If you've made it this far, thanks for nerding out with me for at least a few minutes.
    Got any other questions you need answered?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •