Firearm Forums - Arms Locker banner

Finally got my CAR-15 suppressor

2968 Views 14 Replies 6 Participants Last post by  Hard Rock
Ordered (and paid for) an Advanced Armament M4-2000 suppressor for my CAR-15 back in October, and finally received back the ATF ppwk this past week.

Looking at it, it seems smaller than a 5.56 suppressor should be, but it works very well. Uses a proprietary flash hider with coars "acme" threads and a scalloped shoulder that mates with a retaining spring; holds it solid as a rock, yet can mount or dismount it in just a few seconds.

Don't have a db meter, but do have a digital recorder. So I set out to compare some things.

First, with the ciener .22 unit, using Remington 38-grain subsonic .22LR load. Fired my son's pump-up Crosman pellet rifle (7 pumps), my GAMO .177 pellet rifle, and then the ciener unit with the suppressor; all fired & recorded sequentially on the same "take". On playback, the GAMO was the loudest, and the Crosman and the Ciener were about the same. The loudest part of the ciener shot was the action cycling. (You can even hear the empty .22 brass hit the garage vinyl siding on the recording. It was almost as loud as the shot itself.)

Also ran a magfull of .22's thru the ciener unit & recorded it. When I was done, you can still hear the birds chirping on the building (20 feet away) & power line (60 feet away). Didn't spook them a bit. :beer:

Supersonic .22 ammo has a sonic "crack"; nothing can be done about that.

Next was to compare the suppressor with 5.56 mil-spec 55-grain ammo to an unsuppressed .22LR rifle using standard bulk-pak "hi-velocity" .22LR ammo. The 5.56 was more pronounced, but seemed so because the report was "longer" than the .22's. Couldn't say absolutely that it was higher db level, seemed more that it was right at the same db's, but for a longer duration. Makes sense, as the suppressor still has to release all the energy it can't absorb as heat; it just delays it and releases it more gradually.

If I can lay my hands on a digital "peak & hold" type db meter that will show the highest sound level measured, I'll try it out. Until then, suffice it to say that I'm VERY happy with this thing so far.

Deer seasons this year, I plan to use it. (It's legal in Arkansas to hunt with suppressors, and even with full-auto if you want.) Can't wait to see the looks on the hillbilly's faces when I pull out the CAR with a silencer, alongside their .32-20's, etc. :D

Squirrel season - you bet. Accurate, subsonic .22 ammo; shooting quieter than a pellet gun...? You bet... :cool:

Now I'm just waiting on my Ruger Mk2 to be released, with its new integral 1x7" suppressor. (Looks like a 7" bull barrel) It'll probably be another 6-8 months on that one, too.... :angry:
See less See more
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
way cool!

keep the reports coming!

Sounds like you got a nice setup.

One thing that surprised me was with non-subsonic .22LR ammo. Used two loads; the bulk-pak .22 "hi-velocity" (Federal, from walmart). Box lists a velocity of 1280 fps, iirc. Second load was the CCI Stinger.

Tried it way out in the country where family owns around 1,100 acres, so it's relatively safe to fire a .22 just "up", into the air. Wanted to do this to see if the sonic crack I was hearing was while the bullet was in flight, or from crossing the sound barrier when hitting the target and decelerating suddenly.

The Stinger was had the "crack" no matter where or what direction it was fired. The Federal was as quiet as the subsonic when fired "up", so I wondered if my gun's short 16" barrel kept it subsonic. But firing at a target, there is a VERY loud crack when it hits; sounds like a regular .22 shot going off.

What's intriguing is that since the sound comes from bullet impact rather than firing, that's where the sound "originates" from. So even this (barely?) 'super-sonic' load shouldn't give away the shooter's position anymore than the subsonic loads.

I don't know why the Stinger is so much louder than the Federal. They're both super-sonic (or at least 'trans-sonic'), and it's not the slight increase in powder the stinger probably has; the suppresor's made for .223 loads.

Regardless, since the Stinger's a lot louder, and has never given me good accuracy results in any .22LR gun I've used it in, I think I'll just stick to the normal 'hi-velocity' and subsonic loads in the CAR. If I want to maximize velocity at the expense of noise, I may try the Velocitor load. I bought some a while ago, but haven't tried it yet; they claim 1,400 fps with it out of a rifle. If true, it should be a zippy little round. And accuracy isn't likely to be any worse than with the Stinger...
See less See more
Pic of the flash hider adaptor:


See less See more
On an M4:

You can see that it only adds 5" to the gun OAL, in addition to the 2 1/4" or so that fits over the flash hider; this 2 to 2 1/2" long space around the flash hider creates the expansion chamber before the initial "blast" baffle.


See less See more
fire it at night, look for ANY flash. if there's

SOME, it could be "quieter". What target are you hitting? Some targets make a lot of noise just from the bullet impact. A car door or a stop sign, for instance "gong" like you hit them with a hammer. :)

First of all, ignore Tard. Flash and noise have zero to do with each other in this application.

It sounds like you have a good can there. I like the mounting system they use... It's better than the QD methods some of the other manufacturers have been using.

I have to say, you have stated exactly what I and others have told Tard for a very long time. Impact is loud live with it. LOL.

CCI is a very hot .22 round. The supersonic signature is very pronounced with it. Part of that seems to be due to the design of the projectile.

What are the dimensions of that suppressor?

See less See more
Re: fire it at night, look for ANY flash. if there's

andy said:
What target are you hitting? Some targets make a lot of noise just from the bullet impact. A car door or a stop sign, for instance "gong" like you hit them with a hammer. :)

No, just paper targets (Post-It notes) on a wood backer board, which is nailed to a large tree. With the subsonics, you can hear the impact, almost like a light hammer hit; louder than the shot itself, actually. With the Federals, it's definitely a sonic crack; literally does sound like a gunshot coming from the target.

HardRock - specs from :

Technical Information
Caliber 5.56mm
O.A. Length 7.0 in (178mm)
O.A. Length added to weapon 5.0 in (127mm)
Diameter 1.5 in (38mm)
Weight 23 oz (656g)
Degree of Suppression -35dB (Dry)
Construction Materials 300 Series Stainless Steel and Inconel
Standard Finish Bead Blast Stainless Steel
Optional Finish Socom Flat Black Moly ResinTM (Mine's the black moly)

Retail Price $650.00
(Add $50.00 for black finish)
(Add $95.00 for Flash Compensators)

It comes with one muzzle adaptor. The "Add $95 for Flash Compensators" is for additional adaptors, to use the unit on more than one gun. I've got an e-mail in to AAC; I'm thinking about one for my CZ .22LR bolt-action - it's muzzle is factory-threaded 1/2 x 20 rather than the 1/2 x 28 of the AR.

It would ugly up the CZ, but that gun's such a tack-driver, I'd actually rather use it than the Ciener for squirrels, rabbits, etc. And being a closed-breech action, with no open ejection port "pop", and no sound of the metallic action cycling at the shot, it would actually be quieter even than the ciener unit. Cost would be that hanging that 23-oz weight out on the end of the .22's thinner barrel would almost certainly change poi substantially, and would mean having the scope zeroed for use either "with" the suppressor or "without" it. Mil-dot reticle would help greatly with that, but one thing at a time...

Maybe just "ugly up" my current synthetic-stocked CZ with the AAC adaptor, and have to buy another 'nice' CZ; wood stock, etc. Put the current CZ's scope on the new gun, and a mil-dot or other multi-reference reticle scope on the "usually suppressed" gun...

Anyway, with the AAC unit I have, the integral-suppressed stainless Ruger Mk-II that's being made now, and an adaptor for my CZ, that would give me (effectively):

A suppressed 5.56 autorifle,
A suppressed .22LR autorifle (ciener),
A suppressed (extremely accurate) bolt-action .22LR rifle, and
A suppressed .22 auto pistol.

Not all capabilities at once, but it would give all those different options. All with just the two suppressors.

I could get to like this..... :beer:
Mike's fos, as usual. If the escaping gases

are still hot enough to be incandescent, then they are still LOUD, count on it.
Thanks for a very interesting post, John. You are making me want one of those suppressors. Maybe that suppressed pistol will come around Christmas.


can have the .22 can, .5 day, lathe, torch

ANY day. The 223 can will take a very long day to make and mount. and really should be made of aluminum, and welded with a Tig. Just cutting off the flashhider, and "redoing"same, so that it again "looks ok" when it's returned to the barrel's threads, (loctited) takes 1-2 hours, depending upon whether or not you have to turn a pc of steel to the right size,, thread it, and weld it onto the rear of the flashhider, clean up the weld, and paint everything, in order to once again have the "legal length" of 16".
LOL... right Tard... keep building the lie. Tell you what, explain the thermal-dynamics to back your stance up. Then, I'll explain the real scientifically verified thermal-dynamics of suppressor technology that shows why you are wrong.

Thanks for the report John

That's great information.

all u'll do is LIE, mikey, same as always

just like you lied about the 200 yd heads while swimming, the 60,000 rds thru a barrrel while retaining match accuracy, the 2200 fps left at 600 yds from a 308, etc.
I'm not lying Tard, you are. Please, explain how a .308 can must be twice the size of a .223 can... Then, I'm going to show everyone how wrong you are.

1 - 15 of 15 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.