Printable View
Have seen some full length (from receiver all the way past muzzle) overbarrel suppressors in medium calibers, but they don't seem that common. Would this be because the extra expansion chamber room in the full length suppressors is unneeded in most calibers as well as the extra weight? I can understand the pros and cons of the partial overbarrel and barrel forward suppressors, just never hear full barrel suppressors discussed.
Had a t3 in 223 fully suppressed, could gave been the make of suppressor or the fitting but it leaked gasses back at the scope / my face after couple 100 shots. Had it chopped and rethreaded, much prefer the standard dpt can.
It becomes a look thing at a certain point
the smaller diameter has to be longer to get the same internal volume
aparently one inch forward is equal to 5 inches behind the muzzle so weight wise some manufacturers (Q) choose to go muzzle forward for the ultimate in light weight
I still prefer an overbarrel of the three options mentioned
Definitely not ideal. Good to know that can be a factor.Quote:
Originally Posted by 223nut
Now that's an interesting bit of info - had heard that muzzle forward was more effective, but never seen any numbers mentioned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill999
yeah its messed with what i prefer suppressor wise
It came from the owner of Q kevin brittingham who makes and designs suppressors, I asked why all of theirs are muzzle forward
I like Dpts modularity as you can add in as much as you like till the desired result is achieved.
yeah got me thinking to, save 100grams but have 2inch more forward. Thats the difference between over barrel and Can
Muzzle forward is way better performance wise, but there's handling and balance that are affected, especially relevant for shorter rifles for bush hunting. Over barrel also insulates the barrel and affects heating/cooling more than muzzle forward designs. You pays your money, you takes your pick...