Surefire Warcomps and Wardens

onetwentyish

onetwentyish

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 99.2%
256   2   1
Location
East Central AB (AKA Northern Texas)
Am I the only one stoked for these? I cant wait to get some. I think I will be moving all my rifles over to this set up. Im just concerned how much they will cost per set, hopefully with in reason.

Who here is getting some?

[Youtube]vA2vcFpUndg[/youtube]

[Youtube]26i_OVKfCWw[/youtube]

[Youtube]Phqxf60o49M[/youtube]
 
Please explain? There is no chance in hell its a suppressor. It does not change the noise level, just pushes it forward same as a linear comp. No way they are a suppressor when the Griffin Armament version is selling here and Lantac BMDs are on thier way.

We are just waiting for ITAR.
 
They are ITAR controlled. Well supposed to be.

And they are made for Surefire muzzle devices that accept suppressors.

However I would like a WarComp.

There's only one guy I know who has both.
 
Just wondering...

What is the point of these blast shields? why not just install a linear comp? the whole point of the comp's/brakes is to keep the rifle shooting 'flat' or with as minimal movement possible, these shields essentially turn the muzzle into a sort of linear comp. Perhaps I don't know the physics of it though.

Or is it simply for instances where you want to 'practice' shooting close to the ground? or don't want to disturb other shooters with the concussion? (without having to swap the muzzle)

It (the blast shields) kind of doesn't make sense to me, as you wouldn't be carrying around this blast shield in the real world in all likelihood anyway? or maybe I am mistaken in that regard, and armed forces/police etc would carry around a blast shield?

Any thoughts?
 
Felonius said:
Just wondering...

What is the point of these blast shields? why not just install a linear comp? the whole point of the comp's/brakes is to keep the rifle shooting 'flat' or with as minimal movement possible, these shields essentially turn the muzzle into a sort of linear comp. Perhaps I don't know the physics of it though.

Or is it simply for instances where you want to 'practice' shooting close to the ground? or don't want to disturb other shooters with the concussion? (without having to swap the muzzle)

It (the blast shields) kind of doesn't make sense to me, as you wouldn't be carrying around this blast shield in the real world in all likelihood anyway? or maybe I am mistaken in that regard, and armed forces/police etc would carry around a blast shield?

Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

Your last 2 paragraphs got it. Real world you would have a suppressor, but since we cant, we can use these. Shooting in doors or near other objects/people? Put the warden on.

I would put one on my rifle for hunting. Watch some videos of the warden in action. Almost no difference in recoil or muzzle climb when compared to the brake with out it. Only real downside is it makes fireballs and adds more weight which I gennerally avoid, but wardens have my interest.
 
Canadian law dictates, to be classified a suppressor, the device must reduce the sounds by 3db. 3db isn't very much so there could be an argument there are already "suppressors" on the market in Canada. For example, the ATRS Eliminator reduces sounds much more than 3db yet is readily available. If the warden receives a commercial ruling, they should be made available here without being classified a suppressor.

I think.....
 
That is interesting. Can you provide a link or reference?

TheGr8One said:
Canadian law dictates, to be classified a suppressor, the device must reduce the sounds by 3db. 3db isn't very much so there could be an argument there are already "suppressors" on the market in Canada. For example, the ATRS Eliminator reduces sounds much more than 3db yet is readily available. If the warden receives a commercial ruling, they should be made available here without being classified a suppressor.

I think.....
Click to expand...
 
I don't have a link specifically advising of the 3db metric. It was communicated by the boys from the mounty lab. It was also said in the same breath, the way the law is written, ear pro would also be classified as a prohibited device as it is "designed or intended to muffle or stop the sound or report of a firearm". So take it for what it's worth. I should also point out, I am not certain this is "law" but a reference only.

My point to all of this is the warden shouldn't be prohibited, but who knows these days.

48. A prohibited device is:

(a) any component or part of a weapon, or any accessory for use with a weapon that is prescribed to be a prohibited device (e.g. any device designed for the purpose of discharging cartridges in rapid succession, bull-pup stocks, etc.);
(b) a handgun barrel that is equal to or less than 105 mm (approximately 4.1 inches) in length, but does not include any such handgun barrel that is prescribed where the handgun barrel is used in international sporting competitions governed by the rules of the International Shooting Union;
(c) a device or contrivance designed or intended to muffle or stop the sound or report of a firearm, such as silencers (please note that some silencers attached to airsoft guns may also be deemed prohibited devices if they can be used in real firearms);
(d) large-capacity cartridge magazines prescribed by regulation; or
(e) a replica firearm.




Matt K said:
That is interesting. Can you provide a link or reference?
Click to expand...
 
TheGr8One said:
Canadian law dictates, to be classified a suppressor, the device must reduce the sounds by 3db. 3db isn't very much so there could be an argument there are already "suppressors" on the market in Canada. For example, the ATRS Eliminator reduces sounds much more than 3db yet is readily available. If the warden receives a commercial ruling, they should be made available here without being classified a suppressor.

I think.....
Click to expand...

Uh no. The eliminator only "reduces" the sound to the shooter by directing the sound forward.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom