Anon03/09/26, 13:39No.64949904
The standard for cans should be hub so that R&D in various mounting systems can continue and be incentivized by backwards compatibility and the associated sales volume.We want new and better mount and muzzle device systems and mechanisms. The profit that a company might make off of a new and improved mount and muzzle device suppressor mounting system will be increased if people with older cans are able to adopt the new product. This is best enabled by a sort of universal thread standard of some sort on the can end, IE hub thread 1.375"-24 TPINow if you're asking about a particular mounting system there are a few important considerations.I believe strongly that active multi-layer retention of some sort is a necessary must for the VAST majority of firearms that are set up in the true spirit of the 2nd Amendment. Range toys and hunting rifles need not apply. Similarly, special applications (Liberators, covert guns etc) might be exempt depending on specifics.The functional difference between a suppressed vs unsuppressed firearm is huge. As such it is absolutely a priority to have a suppressor. Active retention is critical insurance because if the suppressor comes unmounted or backs off your risk destroying the suppressor, which less having to do with the cost of repair/replacement, renders the weapon significantly functionally inferior in the sense that once there is a baffle strike, you either remove the suppressor and deal now with the associated reduction in capability from a full report firearm, or you leave the damaged suppressor on and retain suppression, but have a fucked POI due to the baffle strike.This is why the insurance of active retention is so critical, and why direct thread and other "passive" measures like the HUX system don't cut it in my opinion.Now some might say then why not just crank the can down hard direct thread. This isn't unreasonable, but functionally and administratively being able to QD the can is good for transport etc
